Understanding the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Rajya Sabha Elections
In a significant ruling on March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court clarified its stance on the nature of Rajya Sabha elections and their coverage under legislative privileges. The court overturned its 2006 judgment in the Kuldip Nayar case, where it had held that Rajya Sabha elections were not considered proceedings of the legislature within the meaning of Article 194. The recent verdict emphasized that the role of the Rajya Sabha is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution’s basic structure.
The judgment, delivered by a seven-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, stated that parliamentary privileges under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) extend beyond legislative activities on the floor of the house. It encompassed other powers and responsibilities of elected members, even when the legislative body is not in session.
1. Rajya Sabha’s Role as Basic Structure
The Supreme Court emphatically stated that the role of the Rajya Sabha is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This recognition expands the scope of parliamentary privileges under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) beyond legislative activities on the floor, encompassing various powers and responsibilities even when the house is not in session.
2. Overturning the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao Judgment
The verdict also overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment, which granted parliamentary immunity in bribery cases related to legislators’ votes or speeches. This decision, essential for the functioning of a robust democracy, establishes that members of parliament and legislative assemblies are not immune from prosecution on bribery charges.
The Legal Battle: Arguments
3. Rejection of Attorney-General Stand
The court dismissed the argument presented by Attorney-General R Venkataramani, asserting that a vote for Rajya Sabha election is not a ‘legislative vote’ within Article 194(2). The judgment clarifies that even votes cast in the lobby of the state legislature fall within the protective cover of Article 194(2).
4. Interpretation of Article 194(2)
The court delved into the constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 80 and 194, highlighting the essential nature of the act of voting for Rajya Sabha members. It emphasized that such processes are crucial to the functioning of the legislature and parliamentary democracy as a whole.
Clarifying Kuldip Nayar: Rajya Sabha Elections and Article 194(2)
5. Distinction between ‘Legislature’ and ‘House of Legislature’
Addressing doubts raised by Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, the court clarified the distinction between a ‘house of the legislature’ and the legislature itself. It emphasized that elections to the Rajya Sabha fall within the ambit of Article 194(2), contrary to the 2006 Kuldip Nayar judgment.
6. Protecting Rajya Sabha Elections
The Supreme Court underscored the critical role played by Rajya Sabha elections, stating that protecting the free and fearless exercise of franchise is essential. It recognized the Rajya Sabha’s integral function in the democracy’s working and its contribution to the basic structure of the Constitution.
Upholding Parliamentary Privilege
7. Extending Privilege Beyond Legislative Activities
Finally, the court clarified that the protection afforded by Articles 105 and 194, colloquially known as ‘parliamentary privilege,’ is not limited to law-making on the house floor. It extends to other powers and responsibilities of elected members, even when the house is not in session. The court’s reasoning regarding constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 80 and 194. It emphasized that voting for members of the Rajya Sabha is an integral part of the powers and responsibilities of elected members of state legislative assemblies, as entrusted by Article 80. The judgment clarified that Article 194(2) does not restrict the protection to only activities on the floor of the house but extends to other powers and responsibilities of elected members, including elections, even when the legislature is not in session.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s recent judgment not only reshapes the understanding of Rajya Sabha elections but also reaffirms the significance of parliamentary privilege in safeguarding the democratic process. As India continues its journey as the world’s largest democracy, this ruling marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of its legislative
Rajya Sabha
In a landmark decision on March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of India, through a seven-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, brought clarity to the constitutional landscape by affirming that Rajya Sabha elections fall within the purview of Article 194(2). This judgment revisited the 2006 Kuldip Nayar ruling, which had held a different perspective.
1. Revisiting Kuldip Nayar Judgment
The court, in a pivotal move, revisited the 2006 Kuldip Nayar judgment, asserting that Rajya Sabha elections are indeed proceedings of the legislature under Article 194(2), contrary to the previous interpretation, addressing the observation made by the five-judge bench in Kuldip Nayar, the Supreme Court has now clarified that voting for elections to the Rajya Sabha falls within the ambit of Article 194(2). “Mr Raju Ramachandran, senior counsel on behalf of the appellant has argued that the observations in Kuldip Nayar do not constitute the ratio decidendi of the judgment and are obiter. It is trite law that this court is only bound by the ratio of the previous decision. There may be some merit to this contention. However, in any event, this being a combination of seven judges of this court, it is clarified that voting for elections to the Rajya Sabha falls within the ambit of Article 194(2). On all other counts, the decision of the constitution bench in Kuldip Nayar remains good law.” Rajya Sabha’s role part of basic structure, elections to the parliament’s upper house requires utmost protection: Supreme Court Underscoring the crucial role played by Rajya Sabha elections within the framework of the Constitution, the court highlighted the significance of protecting the free and fearless exercise of franchise by legislative assembly members while electing members of the parliament’s upper house. It noted that not only did the Rajya Sabha play an integral part in the functioning of our democracy, but its role constitutes a fundamental part of the basic structure of the Constitution itself. “The Rajya Sabha or the Council of States performs an integral function in the working of our democracy and the role played by the Rajya Sabha constitutes a part of the basic structure of the Constitution”
2. Expansion of Parliamentary Privileges
The Supreme Court broadened the scope of parliamentary privileges under Articles 105(2) and 194(2), extending them beyond legislative activities on the floor to cover all powers and responsibilities of elected members, even outside the legislative session.
3. Overturning Narasimha Rao Verdict
A significant aspect of this ruling was the overturning of the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment regarding parliamentary immunity in bribery cases related to legislative activities. These crucial observations by the Supreme Court come as a part of a judgment overruling the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao verdict. In the 1998 case, a five-judge bench held by a 3:2 majority that members of parliament and state legislatures were immune from prosecution in bribery cases related to their speech or vote in the house in enjoyment of the parliamentary privileges conferred by Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, provided they upheld their end of the bargain for which they received a bribe.
This Judgnment was doubted in JMM leader Sita Soren’s appeal, which is for recent constitution bench judgment by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.
Debunking Arguments
4. Attorney-General’s Contentions
The Attorney-General’s argument, contending that Rajya Sabha elections don’t constitute ‘legislative votes,’ was rejected. The court affirmed that even votes cast in the lobby of the state legislature enjoy protection under Article 194(2).
5. Distinguishing ‘Legislature’ and ‘House of Legislature’
The court made a nuanced distinction between the terms ‘legislature’ and ‘house of such a legislature’ within Article 194(2), highlighting the significance of protecting processes like ad hoc committees and elections.
Constitutional Analysis
6. Constitutional Provisions Governing Elections
The judgment delved into constitutional provisions, especially Articles 80 and 194, emphasizing that the act of voting for Rajya Sabha members is an integral part of the powers and responsibilities of elected members. Parliamentary processes not taking place on the floor of the house also covered by parliamentary privilege: Supreme Court The court’s reasoning delved into the constitutional provisions governing this matter, particular Articles 80 (composition of the Council of States) and 194 (powers, privileges, etc., of the house of legislatures and of the members and committees thereof) of the Constitution. Under Article 80 of the Constitution, the power to vote for members of the parliament’s upper house is solely entrusted to elected members of the state legislative assemblies. Therefore, the act of voting for the Rajya Sabha is an integral part of their powers and responsibilities, the bench observed. Then, the court proceeded to examine whether the language of Article 194(2) placed any restriction on such a vote being protected by parliamentary privilege. Analysing the language of the provision, the bench noted a distinction between the terms ‘legislature’ and ‘house of such a legislature’ within the provision. Accepting Ramachandran’s argument, it observed that while the term ‘legislature’ refers to the wider concept under Article 168, comprising the governor and the houses of the legislature, ‘house of legislature’ specifically refers to the juridical body summoned by the governor under Article 174. The former functions indefinitely and continues to exist even when the governor has not summoned the house. “The first limb of Article 194(2) pertains to “anything said or any vote given by him in the legislature or any committee thereof”. However, in the second limb, the phrase used is “in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a house of such a legislature of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.” There is a clear departure from the term ‘legislature’ which is used in the first limb, to use the term ‘house of such a legislature’ in the second limb of the provision. It is clear, therefore, that the provision creates a distinction between the two.” In this context, the bench highlighted parliamentary processes, such as ad hoc committees and standing committees, that do not necessarily take place on the floor of the house. These processes, which include elections to the Rajya Sabha and elections for the president and vice-president, nevertheless are essential to the functioning of the legislature and parliamentary democracy as a whole. There appears to be no reason, the court reasoned, why the deliberations that take place in such committees would not be protected by parliamentary privilege. Similarly, there appears to no restriction either in the text of Article 105(2) and Article 194(2), which pushes such elections to the Rajya Sabha or for the president or the vice president outside of the protection provided by the provisions. Such elections may be conducted within the precincts of the legislature even when the parliament or the state legislative assemblies are not in session, the court noted. It then added – “However, they are an integral part of the powers and responsibilities of elected members of the parliament and state legislative assemblies. The vote for such elections is given in the legislature or parliament, which is sufficient to invoke the protection of the first limb of Articles 105(2) and 194(2). Such processes are significant to the functioning of the legislature and in the broader structure of parliamentary democracy.” Bench clarifies Kuldip Nayar judgment on the aspect of Rajya Sabha elections falling within ambit of Article 194(2) Next, addressing the observation made by the five-judge bench in Kuldip Nayar, the Supreme Court has now clarified that voting for elections to the Rajya Sabha falls within the ambit of Article 194(2). “Mr Raju Ramachandran, senior counsel on behalf of the appellant has argued that the observations in Kuldip Nayar do not constitute the ratio decidendi of the judgment and are obiter. It is trite law that this court is only bound by the ratio of the previous decision. There may be some merit to this contention. However, in any event, this being a combination of seven judges of this court, it is clarified that voting for elections to the Rajya Sabha falls within the ambit of Article 194(2). On all other counts, the decision of the constitution bench in Kuldip Nayar remains good law.” Rajya Sabha’s role part of basic structure, elections to the parliament’s upper house requires utmost protection: Supreme Court
7. Protecting Parliamentary Processes
The court underscored the importance of protecting not only activities on the floor but also parliamentary processes such as Rajya Sabha elections, essential for the functioning of the legislature and parliamentary democracy.
Upholding Democracy
8. Integral Role of Rajya Sabha
Highlighting the fundamental role of Rajya Sabha in the constitutional framework, the court emphasized that its elections form an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
9. Ensuring Free and Fearless Voting
The judgment underscored the need to ensure the free and fearless exercise of franchise by elected members during Rajya Sabha elections, essential for the dignity and efficient functioning of state legislative assemblies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s recent judgment redefines the landscape of parliamentary privileges, emphasizing the importance of protecting the democratic process. It clarifies that the privilege extends to all powers and responsibilities of elected members, including Rajya Sabha elections.
Case Details Sita Soren v. Union of India | Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019
Judgment Delivered 4th march 2024
Click Here to read/Download Judgment
FAQs:
- What prompted the Supreme Court to revisit the Kuldip Nayar judgment?
- The court revisited the judgment to clarify the constitutional standing of Rajya Sabha elections and the scope of parliamentary privileges.
- How does this ruling impact the immunity of legislators in bribery cases?
- The judgment overturns the 1998 Narasimha Rao verdict, stating that legislators are not immune from prosecution in bribery cases related to their actions in the legislature.
- What is the distinction between ‘legislature’ and ‘house of such a legislature’ in Article 194(2)?
- The court clarified that while ‘legislature’ refers to the broader concept, ‘house of such a legislature’ specifically denotes the juridical body summoned by the governor under Article 174.
- What prompted the Supreme Court to revisit the Kuldip Nayar judgment?
- Why is protecting Rajya Sabha elections considered crucial for democracy?The court emphasized that Rajya Sabha plays an integral role in the democratic framework, and protecting the free and fearless exercise of franchise during its elections is essential.
- How does this judgment impact parliamentary privileges beyond legislative activities on the floor?
- The ruling extends parliamentary privileges to cover all powers and responsibilities of elected members, emphasizing the broader scope beyond legislative sessions.
