LAGATAR24 DESK
New Delhi, Sept 26: The Supreme Court on Monday notified a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud to decide on the validity of a controversial 1998 decision that allowed lawmakers who receive bribes to cast a vote or make a speech in the legislature to go scot-free, reports The Hindustan Times.
The bench, also comprising justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra, will hold its first sitting on October 4.
The 1998 decision, PV Narasimha Rao v State (CBI), came in the backdrop of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha bribery scandal that rocked the Congress government headed by PV Narasimha Rao in 1993. The Narasimha Rao government allegedly bribed several parliamentarians across parties to defeat a no-confidence motion.
The top court by a 3:2 majority decided that MPs who took the bribe and voted in the House could not be prosecuted as they enjoyed immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. However, the same decision held that such protection will not be available to a MP who receives a bribe but abstains from voting or making a speech.
On September 20, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by chief justice Chandrachud had occasion to consider the correctness of the decision, which arose in an appeal by former legislator Sita Soren, a JMM MLA and daughter-in-law of party chief Shibu Soren.
The allegation against Sita Soren was that in 2012, an election was held for two vacant seats in the Rajya Sabha from the state when she allegedly took a bribe from an independent candidate, RK Agarwal, but voted for another candidate. When she was sought to be prosecuted for bribery by the Central Bureau of Investigation, she relied on the 1998 verdict to claim immunity available to legislators of state assemblies under Article 194(2), similar to that for MPs under Article 105(2).
Since the interpretation of the 1998 decision was involved, a three-judge bench in March 2019 referred the matter to a constitution bench of five judges. When this bench took it on September 20, it agreed to unanimously refer the 1998 verdict for reconsideration to a seven-judge bench.
The court said that the object of immunity can never be to exempt legislators as persons wielding higher privileges in claiming immunity from application of criminal law that common citizens do not possess. It argued that the immunity is provided to legislators so that they can voice their opinion freely, without fear of consequences.
“The object clearly is not to set apart the members of the legislature as persons who wield higher privileges in terms of immunity from the application of the general criminal law of the land which citizens of the land do not possess,” the bench held.
The immunity under Article 194(2) relied to by Sita Soren stated, “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.” The corresponding provision providing immunity to parliamentarians contained in Article 105(2) is similar.
The top court noted an anomaly that while the 1998 decision protected those MPs who vote after receiving a bribe, similar protection is not available to members who abstain from voting after receiving a bribe. The 1998 decision refused to extend immunity to then MP Ajit Singh, who allegedly took a bribe but abstained from voting in the House.
Another reason for seeking review of the 25-year-old judgment was to determine when the offence of bribery becomes complete. The minority view in the 1998 ruling given by justices SC Agarwal and AS Anand said that once it is proved that a legislator has accepted money, his later conduct in the House is irrelevant as the offence gets completed with the receipt of money.
The court had sought the assistance of attorney general R Venkatramani, who said a reference to the 1998 verdict was not made out in the facts of the present case. Voting for Rajya Sabha election took place in the precincts of the Jharkhand assembly, which cannot be considered as part of “proceedings of the House,” he said. Sita Soren will not be entitled to immunity and will have to face trial, he argued.
The court was further informed that a review filed against the 1998 decision was dismissed in 2001 and a writ petition filed by non-profit Centre for Public Interest Litigation sought to challenge the majority view of the Narasimha Rao ruling, but was dismissed in 2002.
However, the five-judge bench said, “If it is an issue that deeply affects the morality of our legislators, we should take a call to straighten the law. If it furthers public morality on part of our legislators, we should not leave it to a time in future.”
