Can corrupt lawmakers claim immunity from prosecution

Tribune News Service

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, March 3

Do MPs and MLAs enjoy immunity from prosecution for taking bribes for making speeches or voting in a particular manner in the House?

A seven-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud -- which reserved its verdict on reconsidering the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao case verdict that gave blanket immunity to bribe taker lawmakers on October 5 last year -- will deliver it on Monday.

In the Narasimha Rao case, the top court had held that MPs and MLAs enjoyed immunity from prosecution for taking bribes for “anything said or any vote given” in the House.

The Bench – which also included Justice AS Bopanna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Manoj Misra --had reserved its verdict after hearing Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre, senior counsel Raju Ramachandran for petitioner Sita Soren, senior counsel and amicus curiae PS Patwalia, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and others.

Venkataramani had suggested that the immunity could extend to speech or acts of voting needed to discharge the duty of a lawmaker without fear of consequences.

Twenty-five years after a five-judge Constitution Bench in the PV Narasimha Rao case ruled that a lawmaker was immune to prosecution even if he/she took money to vote on the floor of the House, a five-judge Bench led by the CJI had on September 20, 2023 referred the issue to a seven-judge Constitution Bench to reconsider the correctness of the 1998 judgment.

Earlier, the important question of law relating to parliamentary privilege under Article 105 and Article 194 of the Constitution was referred to a five-judge constitution Bench by a three-judge Bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi on March 7, 2019 in connection with JMM legislator Sita Soren's plea claiming protection under the top court’s ruling in Narasimha Rao’s case after being accused of taking a bribe during a Rajya Sabha election.

Article 105(2) says no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in a court in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or any committee thereof. A similar immunity is given to state legislators under Article 194(2).

During the hearing, the Centre had urged the Bench to limit the scrutiny to criminality aspect and not to delve into parliamentary privilege under Article 105 of the Constitution. 

Mehta had submitted that the controversy can be narrowed down in view of the fact that the offence of bribery would be complete when a bribe was given and accepted by a lawmaker and it can be dealt with under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

However, the Bench had pointed out that the Narasimha Rao case verdict gave immunity to lawmakers irrespective of criminality involved.

“We will have to ultimately deal with the issue of immunity as well... We have to decide a very narrow issue whether immunity is attached when there is an element of criminality,” the Bench had noted.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

#Justice DY Chandrachud