Supreme Court rules: No immunity for MPs/MLAs accepting bribes to vote or speak

PTC News Desk: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overturned its 1998 ruling granting immunity to lawmakers who accepted bribes for voting or delivering speeches in Parliament and state legislatures. The seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, unanimously held that corruption among legislators undermines public integrity and cannot be shielded by parliamentary privilege.

The bench emphasised that individual legislators cannot claim immunity under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution, as bribery undermines the collective functioning of the legislature and erodes democratic values. Article 105(2) grants MPs immunity for their actions in Parliament, while Article 194(2) extends similar protections to MLAs.

According to the bench, bribery is a criminal offense independent of legislative duties and violates public trust. The offense is complete upon the exchange of illegal gratification, regardless of the outcome of the vote or speech. The judgment extends to elections for Rajya Sabha, president, and vice-president.

The decision to revisit the 1998 judgment was prompted by a case involving former Jharkhand assembly member Sita Soren, accused of accepting a bribe for voting in the Rajya Sabha elections of 2012. The earlier ruling, issued amidst the JMM bribery scandal during the PV Narasimha Rao government, granted immunity to lawmakers who fulfilled their end of the bribery agreement.

The reversal underscores the court's commitment to upholding public integrity and combating corruption within legislative bodies, marking a significant shift in jurisprudence regarding parliamentary privilege and criminal liability.

Also Read: Indian Idol 14: Kanpur's Vaibhav Gupta wins, bags Rs 25 lakh prize money and car

In 1998, the court's 3-2 verdict granted MPs immunity under Article 105(2) for accepting bribes and voting in the House. However, this protection did not extend to MPs who received bribes but abstained from voting or speaking. This discrepancy led to the court's decision to allow the prosecution of MP Ajit Singh, who allegedly received a bribe but did not vote.

Last year, a seven-judge bench reserved its verdict on the validity of the 1998 ruling. The Union government urged the bench to overturn the precedent set by the 1998 judgment, arguing that bribery outside legislative houses is prosecutable under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

The government proposed establishing an in-house committee called "speech and vote watch" as an alternative to judicial guidelines. It emphasised that the 1998 judgment should be declared "per incuriam" because it did not consider the PC Act's statutory scheme criminalising bribery outside legislative houses.

The government stressed that the court should refrain from prescribing rigid norms, as Parliament and state legislatures should determine enforceable norms based on lawmakers' varied roles. Citing Section 7 of the PC Act, which imposes a punishment of up to seven years in jail for bribery, the government argued that legislative privilege does not apply to bribery offenses.

Senior advocates representing Sita Soren and amicus curiae supported the view that legislators should not have immunity for accepting bribes. They argued that constitutional privileges protect lawmakers from political persecution but should not shield them from criminal prosecution.

Also Read: Delhi excise policy case: Arvind Kejriwal responds to ED summons, willing to answer post March 12

Also Read: What is PM Modi's 'Viksit Bharat 2047' vision? Know NDA's next big plan ahead of 2024 Lok Sabha Elections

Also Read: Nikki Haley shatters Trump's winning streak, secures first primary win

(Inputs from agencies)

-

Join Whatsapp Channel