ANURAG KESHARWANI
Immunity of Legislators from Bribery Charges
In the world of politics, immunity from prosecution is a topic that has always been a subject of debate and scrutiny. The recent development in the Indian Supreme Court has once again brought this issue to the forefront. As per a 1998 Supreme Court ruling, legal immunity granted to legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution protects them against criminal prosecution on bribery charges for any speech or vote in Parliament. However, the Supreme Court has now decided to reconsider this precedent, raising important questions about the boundaries of legislative immunity. Let’s delve into this intriguing topic to understand the implications and the ongoing legal proceedings.
Understanding Legislative Immunity
Article 105(2): Shielding Members of Parliament
Article 105 of the Indian Constitution deals with the “powers, privileges, etc. of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof.” Specifically, Article 105(2) states, “No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of any thing said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.”
In simple terms, this provision grants Members of Parliament (MPs) immunity from legal action for anything they say or do while performing their parliamentary duties. For instance, a defamation suit cannot be filed against an MP for a statement made in the House.
Article 194(2): Extending Immunity to State Legislators
Article 194(2) of the Constitution extends a similar immunity to Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) in states. It states, “No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof.”
This provision ensures that state legislators enjoy the same level of immunity as their counterparts in the Parliament.
The Current Legal Case
Sita Soren’s Dilemma
The present case that has prompted the Supreme Court’s reevaluation of legislative immunity involves Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM). She was accused of accepting a bribe to cast her vote for a particular candidate during the Rajya Sabha elections of 2012.
The Jharkhand High Court’s Decision
Sita Soren sought protection under Article 194(2), claiming immunity from prosecution. However, the Jharkhand High Court rejected her plea in 2014, leading her to appeal to the apex court.
The Supreme Court’s Response
In 2014, when Sita Soren approached the Supreme Court, a two-judge Bench recognized the significance of the issue and referred it to a larger Bench of three judges. On March 7, 2019, a three-judge Bench, led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, observed that the Jharkhand High Court’s judgment was closely linked to the 1988 Narasimha Rao verdict.
The Significance of the Reevaluation
Finally, on September 20, 2023, a five-judge Bench, including Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, decided that the time had come to revisit the issue. They stated, “We are of the considered view that the correctness of the view of the majority in P V Narasimha Rao (case) should be reconsidered by a larger Bench of seven judges.” This decision emphasizes the importance of the matter and its relevance to the Indian political landscape.
The Purpose of Legislative Immunity
The court also clarified that the purpose of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) is to ensure that members of Parliament and state legislatures can discharge their duties without fearing legal consequences for their words or votes in the House. It’s not about granting special privileges to lawmakers but rather creating an atmosphere of freedom for them to fulfill their roles effectively.
Revisiting the 1998 Ruling
The 1998 ruling in question, known as the PV Narasimha Rao case, relates to the 1993 JMM bribery case involving Shibu Soren, who incidentally is the father-in-law of Sita Soren, the petitioner in the current case. In Shibu’s case, he and some of his party MPs were accused of taking bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion against the then PV Narasimha Rao government.
In conclusion, the ongoing reconsideration of legislative immunity in India’s Supreme Court is a significant development that could reshape the boundaries of legal protection for lawmakers. The court’s decision to revisit the 1998 ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that legislators can perform their duties without the constant threat of legal action. It remains to be seen how this crucial issue will be resolved and what impact it will have on the Indian political landscape.
FAQs
- What is legislative immunity? Legislative immunity refers to the legal protection granted to members of Parliament and state legislatures, which shields them from criminal prosecution for their statements and votes made during their legislative duties.
- Who is Sita Soren, and why is she involved in this case? Sita Soren is a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) who was accused of accepting a bribe to cast her vote during the Rajya Sabha elections of 2012. Her case has prompted the reconsideration of legislative immunity.
- Why is the Supreme Court reevaluating the 1998 ruling? The Supreme Court is reevaluating the 1998 ruling to determine whether legislative immunity extends to criminal prosecution for bribery charges. This reconsideration is deemed essential due to its potential impact on India’s political landscape.
- What is the purpose of legislative immunity? The purpose of legislative immunity is to create an atmosphere of freedom for lawmakers to fulfill their duties without fearing legal consequences for their words or votes in the House. It aims to enable effective functioning of the legislative process.
- How does the PV Narasimha Rao case relate to the current legal proceedings? The PV Narasimha Rao case is a significant precedent for legislative immunity. It involves a 1993 JMM bribery case, which has connections to the current case through familial relations, as Shibu Soren, a key figure in the 1993 case, is the father-in-law of Sita Soren, the petitioner in the current case.
