Supreme Court overturns its 1998 verdict
New Delhi, March 4: MPs and MLAs taking bribe to vote or make a speech inside the legislature are not immune from prosecution, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a landmark verdict overturning its 1998 judgement, and said bribery and corruption by lawmakers “erode the foundation” of Indian Parliamentary democracy.
Setting aside a five-judge constitution bench judgement of 1998 in the JMM bribery case, a larger bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud also said corruption and bribery by MPs and MLAs eat into probity in public life.
In the JMM bribery case, the Supreme Court had, by a 3:2 majority, held that lawmakers have immunity against criminal prosecution for any speech made and vote cast inside the House under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, In a unanimous judgement on Monday, a seven-judge bench held that Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution, which deal with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs in Parliament and legislative assemblies, seek to sustain an environment in which debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature.
“This purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner because of an act of bribery,” said the bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi welcomed the verdict in a post on X.
“SWAGATAM! A great judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system,” he said.
In its 135-page verdict which was penned by the CJI, the bench said, “An individual member of the legislature cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity under Articles 105 and 194 from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with a vote or speech in the legislature”.
It said such a claim to immunity fails to fulfil the two-fold test that the claim is tethered to the collective functioning of the House and that it is necessary to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.
“The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee,” the court said, adding, “Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life”.
It said the offence of bribery is “agnostic” to the performance of the agreed action and crystallises on the exchange of illegal gratification.
“It does not matter whether the vote is cast in the agreed direction or if the vote is cast at all. The offence of bribery is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe,” it said.
In 1998, a five-judge bench in the P V Narasimha Rao versus CBI case, also known as JMM bribery scandal, had granted immunity from prosecution to a member of parliament or legislature who has allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or speaking in House under Articles 105(2) and 194(2).
The seven-judge bench held the interpretation which has been placed on the issue in question in the judgment of the majority in PV Narasimha Rao case verdict 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.
“On the other hand, a legislator who agrees to accept a bribe, but eventually decides to vote independently will be prosecuted. Such an interpretation is contrary to the text and purpose of Articles 105 and 194,” the court said while striking down the 1998 verdict. (PTI)