Supreme Court on bribe for vote: MPs and MLAs won't get immunity

Top court's unanimous verdict overrules 1998 P V Narasimha Rao judgment

Parliamentary privileges will no longer shield legislators from prosecution if they take bribe to vote or make a speech on the floor of the House, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday as it overturned its own 1998 verdict in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha bribery case.

The apex court had earlier said that it was necessary to reconsider “the correctness” of a 1998 five-judge Constitution Bench judgment. With a 3:2 majority, the bench had then held that legislators have immunity against criminal prosecution on bribery charges for any speech or vote in Parliament.

And on Monday, a seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, ruled that members of parliament and legislative assemblies cannot claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in exchange for a vote or speech in the legislature.

“The judgment in PV Narasimha Rao which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of a legislature who has allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or making a speech has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy.

There is a grave danger of this court allowing the error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered,” the bench said.

The judgement was hailed by leaders across the spectrum. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said it was a “great judgment” which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system.

Congress too welcomed it. 

Its spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi said, “It is a salutary, desirable, welcome judgement. It is something which sets right the law and it should have been done earlier.”

In its observation, the apex court also noted that unlike the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, India does not have “ancient and undoubted privileges” vested after a struggle between the Parliament and the monarch.

“Privileges in pre-independence India were governed by statute in the face of a reluctant colonial government. The statutory privilege transitioned to a constitutional privilege after the commencement of the Constitution,” the bench consisting CJI Chandrachud, and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra said.

The court further said that Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution seek to sustain an environment where debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature.

“This purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a particular manner because of an act of bribery... Bribery is not rendered immune under Articles 105 or 194 because a member engaging in bribery indulges in a criminal act which is not essential for the function of casting a vote or giving a speech in the legislature. Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life...We hold that bribery is not protected by Parliamentary privileges,” the court ruled.

In the 1998 case, a five-judge bench had said members of parliament and state legislatures were immune from prosecution in bribery cases related to their speech or vote in the house in the enjoyment of the parliamentary privileges under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, provided they upheld their end of the bargain for which they received a bribe.