• In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court overturned its 1998 judgment and ruled that MPs and MLAs taking bribes to vote or make a speech inside the legislature are not immune from prosecution. 

• Setting aside a five-judge constitution bench judgment of 1998, a larger bench  headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud also said bribery and corruption by lawmakers erode the foundation of Indian Parliamentary democracy.

• In 1998, a five-judge bench in the P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State (CBI/Spe), also known as JMM bribery scandal, had granted immunity from prosecution to a member of Parliament or legislature who had allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or speaking in the House under Articles 105(2) and 194(2).

• Articles 105 and 194 deal with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs in the Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies.

• The seven-judge bench held the interpretation which has been placed on the issue in question in the judgment of the majority in P.V. Narasimha Rao case verdict results in a paradoxical outcome where a legislator is conferred with immunity when they accept a bribe and follow through by voting in the agreed direction.

What is P.V. Narasimha Rao case?

• The General Elections for the 10th Lok Sabha were held in 1991. Congress (I) emerged as the single largest party and formed a minority government with P.V. Narasimha Rao as the Prime Minister. 

• A motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok Sabha against the government. The support of 14 members was needed to defeat the no-confidence motion. The motion was defeated with 251 members voting in support and 265 members voting against the motion. 

• A group of MPs owing allegiance to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and the Janata Dal (Ajit Singh) group voted against the no-confidence motion. Notably, one MP belonging to the JD(AS), namely, Ajit Singh, abstained from voting.

• A complaint was filed before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging that a criminal conspiracy was devised by which the above members belonging to the JMM and the JD(AS) entered into an agreement and received bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion.

• It was alleged that P.V. Narasimha Rao and several other MPs were parties to the criminal conspiracy and passed on “several lakhs of rupees” to the alleged bribe-takers to defeat the no-confidence motion.

• A prosecution was launched against the alleged bribe-givers and bribe-takers, and cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, Delhi. 

• The accused moved the High Court of Delhi to quash the charges. The High Court dismissed the petitions. Later, appeals were filed in the Supreme Court.

• A five-judge Constitution bench, by 3:2 majority, held that lawmakers have immunity against criminal prosecution for any speech made and the vote cast inside the House under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution.

What led to a review of the verdict?

• On February 17, 2014, Jharkhand High Court refused to quash criminal case against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MLA Sita Soren for allegedly taking bribe in Rajya Sabha polls in 2012.

• An election was held on March 30, 2012 to elect two members of the Rajya Sabha representing the state of Jharkhand.

• The allegation against Sita Soren was that she accepted a bribe from an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favour. However, as borne out from the open balloting for the Rajya Sabha seat, she did not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver and instead cast her vote in favour of a candidate belonging to her own party.

• She moved the High Court to quash the chargesheet and the criminal proceedings instituted against her. The appellant claimed protection under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, relying on the judgment of the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State (CBI/SPE) in 1998.

• The High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings. She later filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. 

• On September 23, 2014, a bench of two judges of the Supreme Court, before which the appeal was placed, was of the view that since the issue arising for consideration is “substantial and of general public importance”, it must be placed before a larger bench of three judges of the Court.

• On March 7, 2019, a bench of three judges which heard the appeal observed that the precise question was dealt with in a judgment of a five-judge bench in P.V. Narasimha Rao case. The bench was of the view that “having regard to the wide ramification of the question that has arisen, the doubts raised and the issue being a matter of public importance”, the matter must be referred to a larger bench.

• Finally, by an order dated on September 20, 2023, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court recorded prima facie reasons doubting the correctness of the decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao case verdict and referred the matter to a larger bench of seven judges.

Key points of the seven-judge bench’s verdict:

• In a unanimous judgment, a seven-judge bench held that Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution, which deal with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, seek to sustain an environment in which debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature.

• This purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner because of an act of bribery.

• The expressions “anything” and “any” must be read in the context of the accompanying expressions in Articles 105(2) and 194(2). The words “in respect of” means ‘arising out of’ or ‘bearing a clear relation to’ and cannot be interpreted to mean anything which may have even a remote connection with the speech or vote given.

• Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast. The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee.

• Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life.

• The offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the agreed action and crystallizes on the exchange of illegal gratification. It does not matter whether the vote is cast in the agreed direction or if the vote is cast at all. The offence of bribery is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe.

• The interpretation which has been placed on the issue in question in the judgment of the majority in P.V. Narasimha Rao case results in a paradoxical outcome where a legislator is conferred with immunity when they accept a bribe and follow through by voting in the agreed direction. On the other hand, a legislator who agrees to accept a bribe, but eventually decides to vote independently will be prosecuted. Such an interpretation is contrary to the text and purpose of Articles 105 and 194.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store