THE NEWS FREEDOM
New Delhi, March 4
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday overturned the contentious ruling in the PV Narasimha Rao case, which previously shielded lawmakers from prosecution for accepting bribes in exchange for votes or speeches in the House. The seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, unanimously overruled the majority verdict of the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao case. “We disagree with and overrule the judgment of the majority on this aspect,” the Supreme Court said.
In its 135-page order, the Supreme Court meticulously dissected the precedent set by the majority and minority opinions in the PV Narasimha Rao case. The court independently scrutinized every facet of the dispute, particularly delving into the question of whether a Member of Parliament or a Legislative Assembly member could claim immunity from bribery charges under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.
Expounding on its rationale, the Supreme Court emphasized that the doctrine of stare decisis, though significant, is not immutable. It underscored the prerogative of a larger bench to reconsider prior rulings, subject to the established criteria delineated in the Court’s precedents.
“The judgment of the majority in PV Narasimha Rao (supra), which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature who has allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or speaking has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy and there is a grave danger of this Court allowing an error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered,” the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court further said that unlike the UK’s House of Commons, India lacks the historical backdrop of ‘ancient and undoubted’ privileges, which were secured after a protracted struggle between Parliament and the monarchy. In the Indian context, privileges were codified by statute during the colonial era, evolving into constitutional privileges following the advent of the Constitution.
Elaborating on the matter, the Supreme Court elucidated that the scrutiny of a claim to privilege under the Constitution falls within the purview of judicial review. Asserting that an individual legislator cannot cloak themselves with immunity under Articles 105 and 194 to evade prosecution for bribery related to their legislative activities, the court emphasized that such a claim fails to meet the dual criteria of being integral to the collective functioning of the legislative body and essential to the legislator’s duties.
Articles 105 and 194, the Court emphasized, are intended to foster an environment conducive to debate and deliberation within the legislature, a purpose undermined when bribery influences voting or speech. Interpreting the language of these articles, the Court clarified that the terms “anything” and “any” must be construed within the context of accompanying expressions, defining the scope of privilege narrowly to matters directly linked to parliamentary activities.
The Court asserted that bribery does not fall under the immunity provided by Article 105(2) and its counterpart in Article 194, as it constitutes a separate criminal offense unrelated to the legislative process. Stressing the distinction between judicial jurisdiction over criminal offenses and the legislative body’s authority to discipline its members, the Court highlighted that the offense of bribery compromises integrity in public life and falls squarely within the domain of the judiciary.
Moreover, the Court argued that the completion of the offense of bribery occurs upon acceptance of the illegal gratification by the legislator, irrespective of subsequent actions taken. The interpretation endorsed by the majority in the PV Narasimha Rao case, granting immunity based on the direction of the vote, was deemed paradoxical and inconsistent with the intent of Articles 105 and 194.
In conclusion, the Court responded to the legal question raised by the impugned judgment, disposing of the criminal appeal accordingly. Any pending applications were also addressed and disposed of in alignment with the Court’s ruling.