_edited.png)
Key takeaways
The Supreme Court has overturned a 1998 ruling, removing immunity for MPs (Members of Parliament) and MLAs (Members of Legislative Assemblies) when facing prosecution for bribery charges.
This landmark decision strengthens accountability and combats corruption in legislative bodies.
Legislators can no longer claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Indian Constitution for actions connected to bribery in relation to their speech or vote in the respective Houses.
What exactly did the Supreme Court say?
In a significant judgment that upholds probity in public life, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that legislators who indulge in bribery for votes or speeches within the House are not immune from prosecution. This overrules a controversial 1998 judgment in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case.
The court emphasised that bribery and corruption in the legislature dismantle the foundations of parliamentary democracy and deprive citizens of the right to "responsible, responsive, and representative democracy."
What was the case?
The Supreme Court's landmark decision stemmed from the case of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MLA Sita Soren. In 2012, she faced accusations of accepting a bribe to vote for a particular Rajya Sabha candidate. The Jharkhand High Court dismissed her plea to quash a CBI case against her in 2014, prompting her to appeal to the Supreme Court.
What was the 1998 ruling that the SC is referring to?
The earlier case, P.V. Narasimha Rao v State (CBI/SPE), involved allegations that certain JMM MPs were bribed to vote against a no-confidence motion against the then P.V. Narasimha Rao government in 1993. A five-judge Supreme Court bench, in a split 3:2 ruling, provided immunity to these legislators under Article 105(2) of the Constitution.
Why was the court reconsidering the Narasimha case?
Narrow Margin: The 1998 decision was highly controversial due to the narrow 3:2 judgment, prompting the court to re-examine this interpretation considering its significant implications for public interest and accountability.
Contradictions and Loopholes: The Supreme Court recognized inherent contradictions within the 1998 ruling and the dissenting opinion of Justice S.C. Agarwal. It appeared to shield those who accepted bribes and voted as intended by the bribe-giver.