Article 105(2): No member of either House of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof. Further, no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.
Article 194(2): “Provides equal protections to members of the State Legislatures by stating that no vote which may be cast and no speech made by a member in the Legislature shall be taken into consideration by the court. It privileges any publication made by order or under the authority of the Legislature.” These constitutional provisions are designed to protect the free speech of elected representatives in the legislative assemblies so that they can debate, vote, and function without fear of legal prosecution. The underlying conception is that the work of legislating, by which open debate and decision-making on matters of public concern are effected, should be immune from external threats and litigation to preserve the integrity of a deliberative democracy.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND LEADING JUDGMENTS
P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998):
This landmark case originated from the 10th Lok Sabha elections, which took place in 1991, wherein Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was accused of bribing MPs to vote against the no-confidence motion. While many MPs were implicated in the matter, Ajit Singh, who abstained from voting, became a key figure. The Supreme Court majority decision concluded that the immunity afforded by Article 105(2) was applicable to the MPs who had voted and hence could not be prosecuted. In fact, the court held that the immunity extended to anything said or any vote cast in the House, as this is essential for maintaining the integrity of the legislative functions. However, Ajit Singh, who abstained from voting, did not enjoy this protection and was prosecuted.
The judgment laid down a wide interpretation of parliamentary immunity, exempting MPs from criminal prosecution on any action linked to their speech or vote in Parliament, so long there was a “nexus” between the act and the performance of their parliamentary duties.
Sita Soren Case
Sita Soren, MLA in the Jharkhand Legislative Meeting, was accused of bribery in the course of the 2012 elections to the Rajya Sabha. She was accused of accepting the bribe to vote for an impartial candidate but actually voted for her get-together candidate. The election was annulled, with a recent election being held in which Soren again voted for her get-together candidate.
The Jharkhand High Court placed great reliance on P.V. Narasimha Rao case. It interpreted the judgment to mean that legislative immunity does not apply if the legislator does not vote in line with the bribery arrangement. Since Soren did not vote as per the bribe’s terms, it concluded that she could be prosecuted since her acts had no “nexus” with her legislative duties. An aggrieved Soren then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which felt the wider ramifications of the case and referred it to a seven-judge bench in 2023, given the constitutional magnitude of the issue.
CORE LEGAL ISSUE
1. Whether the offence of bribery under Section 7 of the PCA is completed on accepting a bribe or only on performing the act for which the bribe is given.
2. Whether a legislator can claim immunity against prosecution under Articles 105(2) or 194(2) of the Constitution for taking a bribe relating to a vote in Parliament or the Assembly.
SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT AND LEGAL REASONING
1. Bribery and the Prevention of Corruption Act
The Supreme Court held that bribery under Section 7 of the PCA does not depend upon whether the act for which the bribe has been taken is in fact performed. The offense becomes complete the moment the public servant “obtains,” “accepts,” or “attempts” to obtain an undue advantage from whatever source, whether he acts on it or not. The provision intends to be preventive, since criminality under the provision begins at the earliest stage. The Court has held that under the PCA, an acceptance or even an attempt to accept a bribe is considered a criminal offense and the bribe-taker need not fulfill the intended action as a consideration for having taken the bribe.
2. Legislator’s Immunity
The Court has substantially restricted the width of P.V. Narasimha Rao wherein it has explained that immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) will not cover criminal actions such as taking a bribe. Immunity protects legislators from legal accountability for speeches and votes in the legislature so that there may be uninhibited debate and democratic decision-making. Bribery, which seeks to influence a legislator in the discharge of his legislative duties by means not legally recognized, is outside the legitimate scope of legislative activity.
The Court pointed out that immunity has to pertain to acts necessary for the “collective functioning” of the House. Actions of receiving bribes are, in their nature destructive to the democratic process because such acts inhibit the free will and independent judgment of legislators, and as such may be held liable to criminal liability even though such acts are in some respects connected with legislative functions of voting.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES AND DEMOCRACY
1. Deterrence from Corruption
The interpretation of the PCA, as made by the Supreme Court, shows a no-nonsense disincentive policy towards corruption, where criminalizing the acceptance of a bribe at any stage of examination holds a public official, inclusive of legislators, accountable for his actions. This interpretation renews the goals of prevention enumerated in anti-corruption laws to address not just the outcome of corrupt acts but, most importantly, the intent to engage in corruption.
2. Balancing Legislative Immunity and Accountability
The constitutional immunity extends to MPs and MLAs to ensure independence in legislative functions. But this is not blanket immunity. Whatever is done in its functional relation with democratic exercise of debate and decision, the Court said, is granted protection, but “legislative immunity cannot be claimed for a criminal act”. The corrupt acts will not be covered under Article 105(2) or Article 194(2) even if those are linked to the parliamentary functions. In reaffirming this distinction, the Court bolsters accountability of public officials and ensures that the shield of immunity does not become a license to corruption.
DEFECTS OF LAW
While the judgment rightly underscores the view that immunity of legislators cannot extend to illegal acts such as bribery, it is heartening that the Court also took into account the susceptibility of this interpretation being used as an instrument of abuse. There is the possibility that such laws would lead to political vendetta against legislators who vote against certain interests by falsely accusing them of bribery. The Court said that a balance has to be struck so that legislators are not harassed by false accusations and yet principles of accountability and anti-corruption are not defeated.
ANALYSIS
The Court has reaffirmed that the immunity accorded to legislators is the drastic step necessary to protect the integrity of Parliament and State Legislatures so that elected members can carry out their functions without any apprehension of legal prosecution. This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with condoning criminality. Immunity does not extend to criminal acts such as bribery. Their actions remain subject to the law when the same has been done outside the ambit of their legitimate legislative functions. It would, therefore, not fall under Articles 105(2) or 194(2) as bribery tends to undermine both integrity and democracy that these provisions aim to protect. Under the PCA, acceptance of a bribe is a criminal offense, even if the legislator does not act on it. Upon acceptance of the bribe, he incurs liability because the mere act has already brought him within the ambit of the law on the Court’s commitment to cut corruption at its roots.
CONCLUSION
This judgment of the Supreme Court in Sita Soren v. Union of India is a milestone in the interpretative regime of legislative immunity and anti-corruption laws. The Court had restricted the scope of immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) to exclude the criminal act of bribery, and the true accountability of legislators has been balanced with the protection of democratic processes of debate and voting. It also strengthens the anti-corruption regime since it criminalizes receiving bribes at any stage, which is anti-corruption approach.
This decision strikes a good balance between the need to protect legislative processes and ensuring accountability in cases involving corruption among public officers. However, it will be important to avoid sham or phony with political misuse under this interpretation.
VISHUDH M RAWAT
VIPS-TC