A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday (4th March) ruled that an MP or MLA cannot claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with the vote or speech in the Parliament or Legislative Assembly.
In a unanimous view, the SC’s Constitution Bench overruled the 1998 judgement in the PV Narasimha Rao case. The seven-judge bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud also comprised Justices Bopanna, Sundresh, Narasimha, Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra.
Welcoming the verdict, Prime Minister Narendra Modi took to X saying, “A great judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system.”
In the PV Narasimha Rao case, the Congress Party with Narasimha Rao as its Prime Minister had given bribes to some members of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and urged them to vote against the No Confidence motion moved against Rao in 1991.
The majority judgment in this case had held that a lawmaker was immune to prosecution even if he/she took money to vote on the floor of the House.
A recent case in point is Mahua Moitra’s cash for query incident wherein the now-expelled TMC MP had asked questions on the floor of the House against Adani on behalf of businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for bribe including expensive gifts and cash. Moitra had done so by giving access of her Parliamentary account login details to Hiranandani who submitted questions against Adani.
Overruling the verdict, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud observed, “We disagree with the judgment in PV Narasimha case which grants immunity to a legislator for alleged bribery for making a speech or vote in a particular manner in the House that has wide ramifications.”
The top court held that corruption and bribery by legislators destroy the functioning of Indian Parliamentary democracy. The bench headed by the CJI said that the bribery is not rendered immune citing Article 105 or 194.
“A member indulging in bribery indulges in a criminal act which is not essential for casting a vote or giving a speech in the legislature,” the CJI said.
The Supreme Court said that the interpretation of PV Narasimha judgment is contrary to Articles 105 and 194 of the constitution.
The court said that the interpretation which has been placed on the issue in question and the judgment of the majority in PV Narasimha Rao results in a paradoxical outcome where a legislator is conferred with immunity when they accept a bribe and follow through by voting in the agreed direction.
Chief Justice Chandrachud further observed that the offence of bribe is crystallised on the taking of illegal gratification and it does not depend on whether the vote or speech is given later.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the bench that the privilege was granted to ensure that lawmakers vote and perform their duties fearlessly.
He said, “Court should not be influenced by extreme examples.. like an agreement being made for bribe inside the parliament.. it can also happen that the transaction to transfer such bribe also happens inside the parliament.”
He contended that the Narasimha Rao ruling inadvertently shields individuals accepting bribes once an action (like delivering a speech or casting a vote influenced by the bribe) is completed.
Speaking after the verdict, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay said that the apex court through its judgment made it clear that if any legislator takes bribes to ask questions or cast vote in the legislature will not be immune to prosecution.
He said that the accused legislator will not be treated with any special protocols but will be charged with corruption.
Case in point – Mahua Moitra’s Cash for Query case
The country witnessed Investigation by the Parliamentary ethics committee into charges against former TMC MP Mahua Moitra revealed that Moitra had provided the login credentials of her Parliamentary account to businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for expensive gifts, bags, and even money.
The charge was eventually accepted by the former MP herself. Moreover, Mahua Moitra had also asked questions against Adani on the floor of the Lok Sabha to benefit Hiranandani. Hiranandani had admitted to paying cash, lavish gifts to Moitra, and having access to her Lok Sabha login credentials. Moitra was expelled based on the recommendations of the ethics committee report.
(With agency inputs)
