What the Case relates to-
The Ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sita Soren vs Union of India” (UOI) is a landmark judgment. The constitution bench made a unanimous decision on the “liability of the Member of Parliament in respect to bribery under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988” as well as legal protection provided by the Constitution. This case comment analysis will seek to understand the background of the case, issues involved, contention of the party, analyzing the decision of the court and its impact.
Brief Background of the case–
In 2012, “Sita Soren belonging to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) was a member of Jharkhand Legislative Assembly”. She was accused of taking a bribe during the Rajya Sabha election. An independent candidate contesting the election categorially asked Sita Soren to cast the vote in his favor. As the election was an Open Ballot System, she decided to cast the vote in favor of her own party. Soon Criminal charges were filed against her.
Soren had no other option but to resort to Jharkhand High Court to set aside the charges levied against her under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988.
Key issues that were considered before the court-
- “Whether the offense of bribery under “section 7(3)” of the PCA is complete once the bribe is accepted, without the commission of act for which the bribe was given.
- Whether the elected member in parliament (legislator) enjoy immunity from prosecution under Article 105 (2)(4) or Article 194 (2)(5) of the Constitution of India, for accepting bribes to vote in Parliament”[i].
What Does Article 105 and 194 talks about-
“Article 105(2) of the Constitution talks about no member of Parliament shall be held liable for anything said or done to cast any vote in Parliament”[ii].
“Article 194(2) similarly extends this privilege to the elected members of State Legislatures”[iii]. Under this specific provision, Sita Soren seeks protection.
High Court Decision-
Contentions raised by Appellant (Soren)-
The primary contention raised by the appellant was being a MLA, “she enjoys protection under Article 194(2) of the Constitution”. She referred to the case of “PV Narasimha Rao vs State, where the Supreme Court held that lawmakers enjoy immunity for their speech and votes in the House as parliamentary privilege”[iv].
In the PV Narasimha Rao case, Prime Minister Rao was accused of bribing members “to vote against a no-confidence motion initiated against the government”. One MP, Ajith Singh, abstained from voting. The five judge bench in “3:2 majority held that an MP shall not be held answerable in court for something that has a nexus to vote in parliament”[v]. Ajith Singh, who did not vote, was held for prosecution. This judgement met with instant criticism.
Decision of High Court-
The Court relied on the PV Narasimha Rao judgment, and interpreted that if a bribe taker does not vote or act as per the conditions of the bribe, then they would lose the protection of legislature immunity. Since Soren failed to act accordingly, the court held that she would not be granted protection under Article 194(2).
Entry of Supreme Court-
Soren, not satisfied with the verdict of the High Court, decided to file SLP before the Supreme Court. The cases were kept referred to a larger bench considering the issue was of “substantial public importance”. The five-judge bench agreed that PV Narasimha Rao case needed correction. The case was finally referred before a seven-judge bench.
Before the Supreme Court-
Arguments by Appellant-
Appellant argued that the judgment of PV Narasimha Rao was “carefully considered and well-reasoned judgment” which held legislators have “absolute protection” for all the acts on the floor of the house.
Arguments by Respondents-
The Respondents argued that “cloak of immunity” could not be extended for those who interfere with legislative process. Respondents also argued that in a healthy democratic setup there is “no place of immunity for bribes”.
Ratio of the Judgment-
The court in respect of the bribery issue said that it doesn’t matter whether “the act for which the bribe was given is performed or not. The court elaborated that “section 7 of the PCA, mere obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain an undue advantage with the intention to act or forebear from acting in a certain way is sufficient to complete the offense. In section 7 itself there is provided an explanation that further corroborates the court reasoning that obtaining, accepting or attempting is itself an offense even if the performance of the public duty has been not improper.
On the legislative immunity provided to the elected members of parliament or state legislature under Article 105(2) and 194 of Constitution, Supreme Court said the main purpose of granting the immunity under the said provision is to facilitate robust democratic discussions. The court specially gives emphasis that offence of bribery is not rendered immunity under constitutional provisions. Therefore, if any member is found to be indulging in bribery is committing a crime. Which is not essential for casting of vote or towards the ability to decide on how to cast a vote”[vi].
Analysis of the Court Judgment-
The Supreme Court has now finally course-corrected the long-standing issue regarding the immunity granted to elected members for “any act” during the parliament proceedings. The court is right in recognizing that corruption is not just based on the outcome, but on the intention by the perpetrator to engage in corrupt behavior.
The court has given the emphasis on intention of the ‘section 7 of PCA’, which is to make public officials to act in the interest of public welfare and to avoid any illegal act like taking bribery. In order to achieve this, the legislature has purposefully crafted a strict framework that encompasses the various stages of taking bribes that ranges from act of taking the bribe or attempting to take bribe till the commission of the act, for which the bribe was given.
The court has been correct in its analysis that the offense of taking bribes is completed at various levels. The offense is still committed irrespective of the act done or not. This approach by the apex court is worth praising for, since it aligns with the preventive intent of law. The issue addresses the long pending public issue that can significantly harm the country’s development. By criminalizing the mere act of accepting or obtaining a bribe, the court has paved the way of eradicating the social menace of corruption from its root. Thus, the issue can be resolved at the initial stages itself, rather than waiting for it to become a more complex and challenging issue.
In terms of the interpretation of section 7 of PCA, the court corrected the mischief of Article 105(2) in a contextual and holistic manner. The court in PV Narasimha Rao erred in interpreting the term in broad manner, rather the narrower approach should have been adopted. The judges in that case, did not properly infer the legislative intent of Articles 105 and 194. Thus, the court has changed its approach and affirm that blanket immunity should not be provided and be treated equally as ordinary citizens.
It is important to understand the fundamental rationale behind Article 105 and 194. The article was included in the constitution to protect freedom of speech and expression in the house to make meaningful consideration in the house. Thus, taking the bribe is seen against the spirit of the constitution itself and hampers the free judgment, foresight and decision making of the member.
During the judgment, the Supreme Court laid down a two-fold test to determine when the immunity could be extended to public representatives. “First the act for which immunity is claimed must be related to the collective function of the house (in which the member belongs to). Second, the immunity sought must have a functional relationship to the discharge of duty of an individual legislator”. Thus, constitutional privileges failed to comply with the two-fold test.
No Violation of doctrine of Stare Decisis-
During the arguments by petitioner, preliminary objection was raised that overruling PV Narasimha Rao case would hamper doctrine of Stare decisis. The doctrine mandates that judges must adhere to prior verdicts in similar cases. The court however said the “doctrine is not inflexible rule of law” and a larger bench has the power to change the decision, thus there won’t be any violation of doctrine.
Another argument given by the petitioner was dismissed by the court. The petitioner argued that exercise of court jurisdiction is unwarranted because corruption charges against elected members is considered a breach of privilege. The court said judicial proceedings cannot be excluded as bribery charges are also treated by the house as contempt.
Legislative Privileges apply equally to Rajya Sabha Election-
This judgment is significant in another way that it overruled the observations made in Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India[vii], which held “elections to Rajya Sabha are not proceedings of the legislature”. The court did not completely discard the judgment of Kuldip Nayar, only corrected the ambiguous part and the remaining decision still holds validity in the eyes of law.
Conclusion-
The Supreme Court’s decision is being hailed by many all around, as a solution to counter cash-for-votes trade in legislature. This judgement will be looked upon as the one which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system. The effect of this judgment shall continue to create a strong deterrent impact on behavior by the legislators.
[i] Supreme Court Observer. (n.d.). Legislative Immunity for Lawmakers Facing Bribery Charges. [online] Available at: https://www.scobserver.in/cases/sita-soren-union-of-india-mla-bribery-case-background/.
[ii] INDIA CONST. article 105(2)
[iii] INDIA CONST. article 194(2)
[iv] PV Narasimha Rao vs State, Criminal Appeal of 1207 of 1997 SC
[v] www.ebc-india.com. (n.d.). Eastern Book Company – Practical Lawyer. [online] Available at: https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/9808a1.htm.
[vi] Kumar, M., Kumar, S., Kumar, R., Jha, M.K., Tiwari, S.N. and Gupta, P. (2024). Serious Concern of Congenital Zika Syndrome (CZS) in India: A Narrative Review. Journal of Pregnancy, [online] 2024(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/1758662.
[vii] Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India, Writ Petitio no 217, 262, 266 of 2004 SC
Written By- Nandan Rathi, Hidyatullah National Law University.