"We hold that bribery is not protected by Parliamentary privileges. Corruption and bribery by legislators destroy the functioning of Indian Parliamentary democracy," said Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud.
"We disagree with the judgment in PV Narasimha (case). The judgment in that case which granted immunity to legislators for taking bribes to cast votes has wide ramifications," the Chief Justice of India said.
The PV Narasimha Rao case had come up in connection with a no-confidence motion against his government in July 1993. The minority government had survived with a slim margin - 265 votes in favour and 251 against.
A year later, however, a scandal emerged and allegations surfaced that legislators of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha had taken bribes to vote in support of the PV Narasimha Rao government.
Buta Singh was alleged to have been involved in the entire game. 1998-99, I was with country's premier news agency.
The Parliament Street news organisation had an over-smart legal reporter. He reported Buta Singh saying, "As Home Minister under P V Narasimha Rao, I discussed Jharkhand statehood demand with the JMM leaders".
This line was shocking as all five years during his stint Rao's only Home Minister was S B Chavan. The clerk-mentality reporters argument was this is what Buta Singh said in the court !! My point was India's Home Minister for a certain period cannot change just because someone makes a statement in court. Ultimately, I won; and the copy was changed.
More than the legal aspect, my anecdote refers to the quality of journalism that haunted New Delhi o started to haunt ....that was one area of Jugadu-journalism. The 'able' legal team was not reprimanded because Boss had a soft corner somewhere !! Why ??
That remains a mystery like many paradoxes of Parliament Street?
Now the issue of bribery and MPs. The mid-nineties was the typical era of Sickularism and Congress and hence 'bribe' was almost taken for granted.
-- The 'Chalta-hae' variety.
In 1998, the Supreme Court held that the lawmakers' immunity from prosecution extended to their votes and speeches inside the House.
The apex court on March 4, 2024, said that a claim for immunity in such situations fails to pass the test of being necessary to discharge legislative functions.
"We hold that bribery is not protected by Parliamentary privileges. Corruption and bribery by legislators destroy the functioning of Indian Parliamentary democracy. An MLA taking a bribe to vote in Rajya Sabha elections is also liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act," the bench said on March 4, 2024.
The PV Narasimha judgment, the Chief Justice said, results in a "paradoxical situation" in which a legislator who accepts a bribe and votes accordingly is protected whereas a legislator who votes independently despite taking a bribe is prosecuted.
The issue came before the Supreme Court in 2019, when a bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was hearing an appeal by Sita Soren, JMM MLA and daughter-in-law of party chief Shibu Soren.
Ms Soren was accused of taking bribes to vote for a particular candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha election.
She moved the Jharkhand High Court which refused to set aside the criminal case registered against her. She challenged the high court verdict in Supreme Court and argued that the constitutional provision granting lawmakers immunity be applied to her.
The court referred the matter to a five-judge bench. In September last year, it agreed to revisit the 1998 judgment.
Background:
While the JMM MPs voted against the no trust motion, Ajit Singh abstained allegedly after accepting a bribe and helped P V Narasimha Rao survive.
A complaint was filed with the CBI, alleging Narasimha Rao and several other MPs were parties to the criminal conspiracy and passed on "several lakhs
of rupees” to the alleged bribe-takers to defeat the no-confidence motion.
A prosecution was launched against the bribe givers and takers and the CBI took cognisance of the matter.
A plea to quash the proceedings before the Delhi High Court was dismissed.
Consequently, the matter reached the apex court. A five-judge bench of then CJI S P Bharucha, and Justices A S Anand, S Rajendra Babu, S C Agrawal and G N Ray dealt with the matter.
Three opinions were rendered in the matter- one by Justices Agrawal and Anand, second by Justices Bharucha and Babu and third by Justice Ray.
Justice Bharucha held that the alleged bribe-takers who cast their vote against the no-confidence motion enjoyed immunity from prosecution in a court of law under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. However, Ajit Singh (now deceased) who had abstained from voting, and the alleged bribe-givers could not to enjoy the same immunity.
Coincidentally, Ajit Singh was father of RLD leader Jayant who recently decided to back BJP-led NDA.
Justice Bharucha held that for breach of parliamentary privileges and its contempt, the Parliament may proceed against both the alleged bribe-takers and bribe-givers. "The seriousness of the offence committed by the bribe-takers does not warrant a narrow construction of the Constitution. Such a construction runs the risk of impairing the guarantee of an effective parliamentary democracy," he had held.
He further said the bribe-givers can be prosecuted and do not have the protection of Article 105(2).
On the interpretation of Article 105(2), Justice Ray concurred with the judgment of Bharucha. Hence, the opinion authored by Justice Bharucha on the interpretation of Article 105(2) represented the view of the majority of three judges of this Court.
However, Justice Agarwal, in a minority view, held that neither the alleged bribe-takers nor the alleged bribe-givers enjoyed the protection of Article 105(2).
"An MP does not enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) from being prosecuted for an offence of bribery would place them above the law. This would be repugnant to the healthy functioning of parliamentary democracy and subversive of the rule of law," he said.
The minority view of Justices S.C. Agarwal and A.S. Anand, which held that the MPs enjoyed no immunity from criminal prosecution, was on Monday upheld by the seven-judge bench in a unanimous verdict.
ends
The Supreme Court's 1998 judgment was bad in law. What is surprising is that it took the SC 26 years to realise this. How can a wrong outside Parliament/Assembly be right/privilege inside Parliament/Assembly? - R.Vijay, Maharashtra
ReplyDelete