Context: Supreme Court in the Sita Soren vs Union of India judgement has overruled its 1998 judgement in P V Narsimha Rao Vs State (CBI/SPE) which granted immunity to the legislators in context of votes made in parliament and legislative assemblies.
Background of the Issue (P V Narsimha vs State (CBI/SPE) Case)
Article 105(2) of the Constitution of India grants immunity to Members of Parliament (‘MPs’) against prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee. Article 194(2) of the Constitution grants similar immunity to the members of Legislative Assembly.
PV Narsimha Rao case, Constitution Bench of 5 judges upheld the above immunity to the MPs as per Article 105(2) which included the speech or vote made in furtherance of receiving illegal gratification or bribe.
Privileges provided by the Constitution of India:
- In context of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and its Members, Article 105(2) reads:
- No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.
- In context of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures and their Members, Article 194(2) reads:
- 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, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.
Observations in Sita Soren vs Union of India
- Nature of Privileges in India:
- Privileges not absolute: Unlike the House of Commons in the UK, India does not have ‘ancient and undoubted’ privileges which were vested after a struggle between Parliament and the King. Privileges in pre-independence India were governed by statute in the face of a reluctant colonial government. The statutory privilege transitioned to a constitutional privilege after the commencement of the Constitution.
- Individual Member's Claim of Privilege: An individual member of the legislature cannot claim privilege to seek immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution for charges of bribery related to their votes or speeches in the legislature.
- Such claim of immunity fails to meet the twofold test which involves examining whether such action is (1) connected to the collective functioning of the legislative house and (2) the action has a functional relationship "to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator."
- Purpose of Articles 105 and 194: Articles 105 and 194 aim to create an environment conducive to debate and deliberation within the legislature.
- This purpose gets undermined when a member is influenced to vote or speak in a particular manner due to bribery.
- Interpretation of Expressions: The expressions "anything" and "any" in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) must be interpreted in the context of the accompanying expressions.
- The phrase "in respect of" means 'arising out of' or 'bearing a clear relation to' and cannot be construed to include anything remotely connected to the speech or vote given by a legislator.
- Bribe as a crime:
- Bribery and Immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194: Bribery is not immune under Article 105(2) and its corresponding provision in Article 194 because it constitutes a crime that is not essential to the casting of a vote or the ability to decide how a vote should be cast.
- The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee.
- Impact of Corruption and Bribery:
- Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures undermine probity in public life.
- Misuse and Immunity:
- The potential for misuse against individual members of the legislature is neither increased nor decreased by recognizing the court's jurisdiction to prosecute a legislator alleged to have engaged in bribery.
- Completion of Bribery Offense: The offense of bribery is completed at the moment when the legislator accepts the bribe, regardless of whether the agreed action is performed or not.
- The majority interpretation in the PV Narasimha Rao case created a paradox. While accepting a bribe and voting as promised granted immunity, whereas voting independently or contrary led to prosecution. This situation has been corrected by the present case.
- Bribery and Immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194: Bribery is not immune under Article 105(2) and its corresponding provision in Article 194 because it constitutes a crime that is not essential to the casting of a vote or the ability to decide how a vote should be cast.
Conclusion:
- By committing an act of bribery, the immunity of speech or action without fear or favour is taken away when a member votes in a certain way not because of their belief or position on an issue but because of a bribe taken by the member.
- Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian Parliamentary democracy. It is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy.