PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

 MPs AND MLAs CANNOT CLAIM IMMUNITY: SUPREME COURT 

 Context 

Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee. Similarly, Article 194(2) grants protection to MLAs.

1. The Supreme Court of India has issued a landmark judgment stating that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) cannot claim immunity from prosecution for accepting bribes to influence their votes or speeches in the legislative house.
2. This groundbreaking decision overturned a previous ruling-  the P V Narasimha Rao v State (CBI/Spe) Case, 1998 also known as the JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha) bribery case and empowers law enforcement agencies to take action against legislators involved in bribery cases.
3. The previous ruling -1998 ruling (JMM bribery case) had stated that lawmakers who accepted bribes could not be prosecuted for corruption if they followed through with voting or speaking in the House as agreed.
4. Led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, a unanimous seven-judge Constitution Bench overturned the 1998 ruling in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State. This landmark judgment underscores that Members of Parliament and State Legislators forfeit immunity from prosecution if they accept bribes to influence their votes or speeches in the House. It enables law enforcement agencies to pursue legal action against legislators implicated in bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act).

 Brief background of the Present Case:

The case involved Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), accused of accepting a bribe during the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. Despite her claim of legal immunity under Article 194(2), the Jharkhand High Court dismissed her plea in 2014, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred the matter through various benches, eventually questioning the majority view in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case. It emphasized that parliamentary privileges shouldn't provide a higher immunity from the general criminal laws.

 Timeline of the Case:

PV Narsimha Rao Case: During the 10th Lok Sabha, a no-confidence motion was introduced against then Prime Minister P.V. Narsimha Rao. It was alleged that Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MPs and Janata Dal (Ajit Singh) accepted significant bribes from Rao to vote against the motion. Ajit Singh, a member of the Janata Dal party, abstained from voting. In 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) initiated an investigation, alleging a criminal conspiracy among JMM and JD members who received bribes to vote against the motion. The case was brought before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court declined to dismiss the charges. Narasimha Rao and the other accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

1. 1988 - P.V. Narsimha Rao Case: The Supreme Court's decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State (CBI/Spe) established immunity for legislators from prosecution for bribery under Article 105(2) of the Constitution.
2. 1993 - Bribery Allegations: Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader Shibu Soren and some MPs faced allegations of accepting bribes to vote against a no-confidence motion during P.V. Narasimha Rao's government.

3. 1998 Supreme Court Ruling:

   1. With a 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court granted immunity to MPs who accepted bribes and voted to support the Congress government.
   2. Legislators were shielded from criminal prosecution for bribery related to their speeches and votes in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.

4. Subsequent Case Involving Sita Soren:

1. Sita Soren, an MLA from the JMM, was accused of accepting a bribe during the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections.
2. She appealed to the Jharkhand High Court to dismiss the chargesheet and criminal proceedings against her, citing Article 194(2), but her request was denied. Subsequently, she appealed to the Supreme Court.

5. 2019 Re-evaluation by the Supreme Court:

1. In March 2019, the Supreme Court acknowledged the direct relevance of the P.V. Narasimha Rao case.
2. Despite a narrow decision margin (3:2 split among five judges), the Court recognized the substantial public importance of the issue and referred the case to a larger bench.

6. Referral to a Larger Bench:

1. In September 2023, a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud identified few critical from the case. Consequently, they referred the matter to a seven-judge bench for reconsideration and further deliberation.

 2024 Judgement:

The 7-Judge Constitution Bench overturned the 1998 verdict in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, that granted MPs and MLAs immunity for accepting bribes to cast votes. The SC stressed the negative impact of bribery on democratic principles, stating it as a separate criminal offense. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act addresses bribery offenses. Immunity under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution doesn't cover bribery. This decision emphasizes accountability and integrity in governance, upholding the ideals of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy in India. 

 Key take ways from the verdict-

Stare Decisis— a legal principle, that obligates judges to adhere to prior verdicts while ruling on a similar case.

1. No violation of the doctrine of stare decisis: Larger bench can
2. reconsider prior decisions in appropriate cases.

3. Legislative privileges have to conform with constitutional parameters:

• India's parliamentary privileges differ from the UK's ancient rights.
• Privileges in India stem from statute and transitioned to constitutional privilege post-independence.

4. Constitutional immunity from bribery charges does not fulfill “two-fold test”:

• Constitutional immunity fails to support the core duties of legislators.
• The immunity must be tied to the collective functioning of the House and the essential duties of legislators.

5. Bribery not immune just because it is not essential to the way a vote is cast:

• Bribery is not immune under Article 105(2) and Article 194(2).
• Bribery is a crime regardless of its connection to voting or speech in the House.

6. Offence of bribery completes the moment illegal gratification, is taken:

• Accepting a bribe completes the offence, regardless of subsequent actions.
• The place of offering or receiving the bribe is irrelevant.

7. Courts and the House can exercise parallel jurisdictions:

• The Court's jurisdiction to prosecute and the House's authority to take action operate independently.
• Judicial proceedings and House actions serve different purposes.

8. Corruption by legislators erodes the foundation of democracy:

• Corruption undermines the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution.
• It deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy.

9. Legislative privileges apply equally to Rajya Sabha elections:

• Legislative privileges extend to Rajya Sabha elections and appointments of President and Vice-President.
• Voting for Rajya Sabha elections falls under Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
• Immunity guaranteed to legislators extends to various powers and responsibilities beyond law-making on the floor of the House.

10. Accepting bribes do not pertain to the duties of lawmakers:

• Accepting a bribe is a separate crime that is not linked to the actions or words of a lawmaker within the Parliament or legislative assembly.
• Therefore, the immunity provided under Articles 105 and 194 does not extend to cases of bribery, as these do not pertain to the duties of lawmakers.

11. Threat to the functioning of Indian parliamentary democracy:

• The court cautioned that granting such protection would create a group of individuals who enjoy unregulated exemption from the law.
• It emphasized that corruption and bribery by legislators have the potential to undermine the functioning of Indian parliamentary democracy.

 STATIC Information on Parliamentary Privileges 

1. Parliamentary privileges refer to certain rights and immunities enjoyed by members of the Parliament, as well as state legislatures, to perform their functions effectively without interference or obstruction.
2. In India, these privileges are enshrined in the Constitution and Statutory Laws, providing lawmakers with certain rights and immunities to ensure the smooth functioning of the democratic process.
3. Under these privileges, the Members of Parliament are exempted from any civil liability (but not criminal liability) for any statement made or act done in the course of their duties.
4. It is extended to Attorney General of India and Union Ministers, but does not extend to President.
5. Parliament has not made any special law to exhaustively codify all the privileges. They are rather based on five sources:

• Constitutional provisions: Article 105 and Article 194
• Statutory Laws (Various Laws made by Parliament)
• Rules of both the Houses
• Parliamentary conventions
• Judicial interpretations

 Types of Parliamentary Privileges:

1. Collective Privileges:

• Right to publish its reports, debates and proceedings and also the right to prohibit others from publishing the same
• Right to exclude strangers from its proceedings and hold secret sittings
• Right to make rules to regulate its own procedure and the conduct of business
• Right to punish members as well as outsiders for breach of its privileges or its contempt
• Right to receive immediate information of the arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment and release of a member
• No person (member or outsider) can be arrested, and no legal process (civil or criminal) can be served within the precincts without presiding officer’s permission.
• Courts are prohibited into inquiring into the proceedings.

2. Individual Privileges:

• They cannot be arrested during the session Of Parliament and 40 days before and after of a session (but only in civil cases and not in criminal cases or preventive detention cases)
• Exempted from Jury Service- can refuse to give evidence and appear as a witness in a case pending in a court when Parliament is in session
• Members have freedom of speech in Parliament, and no member is liable to any proceedings in any court for anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or its committees.

Must Check: Best IAS Coaching In Delhi