A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, on March 4, declared that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) will face prosecution if found accepting bribes for making speeches or voting in a particular manner in the Parliament or state legislatures. The ruling overrules a 25-year-old judgment in the Narasimha Rao case, asserting that bribery constitutes a standalone offense and does not fall under the constitutional immunity for actions and words spoken within the legislative houses.
The bench highlighted that granting any privilege unrelated to the functioning of Parliament or legislature would create a class enjoying unchecked exemptions from the law of the land. The judges stated that corruption and bribery within legislative bodies erode the democratic process.
The judgment is particularly significant in the context of recent allegations of a ‘cash for query scam’ involving Mahua Moitra, a now-expelled Lok Sabha MP from the Trinamool Congress. It is expected to have implications for accusations of cross-voting by MLAs in the recently concluded Rajya Sabha elections.
While members of Parliament and state assemblies enjoy immunity for their actions and speeches within the legislative houses under the Constitution, the recent ruling clarifies that this immunity does not extend to acts of bribery. The leader of the house can still take action against a member for unethical behavior.
Article 105 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament, ensuring MPs are not prosecuted in a court of law for their expressions or votes inside the legislative houses. However, the recent judgment brings to light that such immunity does not cover criminal proceedings for bribery offenses unrelated to their rights and duties as legislative members.
The judgment revisits a 1998 ruling that conferred immunity on legislators against prosecution for bribery charges related to their speeches or votes in parliament. The reevaluation was prompted by concerns regarding the intent behind granting immunity and its applicability in cases where lawmakers accept bribes to influence their conduct within the legislature.
The 1998 case granted immunity to legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in exchange for their speech or vote in the legislative house. The 1998 Narasimha Rao case held, by a 3:2 majority, that lawmakers enjoyed immunity from prosecution for bribery offences as long as they fulfilled their end of the bargain for which the bribe was received. This immunity was anchored in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, which protect members of Parliament and state legislatures from legal proceedings for their actions and statements within the legislative houses.
While overruling the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgement, the Supreme Court held, “Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian parliamentary democracy. It is disruptive of the aspirations and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy..”
Key considerations included whether immunity should extend to cases where lawmakers receive bribes not to speak or vote on crucial issues, and if accepting a bribe but not fulfilling the intended purpose would still be considered an offense.
The Supreme Court further opined, “It is not necessary for which the bribe is given, that act is performed, the act of obtaining itself gives rise to the offence.”
The ruling brings clarity to these questions and emphasises the need to address bribery cases involving lawmakers with the seriousness they deserve.
The judgment comes after months of deliberation, having been heard and reserved in October 2023, and is expected to have far-reaching implications in maintaining the integrity of legislative bodies and combating corruption within the democratic framework.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling establishes a precedent that ensures lawmakers can be held accountable for bribery offenses, reinforcing the commitment to uphold the democratic values and probity in public life.
Comments