JMM Bribery Case: SC Says Bribery Not Protected By Legislative Privileges

Context: 

This editorial is based on the news “SC overrules majority verdict in JMM bribery case: ‘corruption and bribery by members of legislature erode probity in public life” which was published in the Indian Express. Recently, a seven Judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court held that legislators do not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery charges in connection with their speech and votes made in the Parliament and Legislative assemblies. The Supreme Court overturned its 1998 PV Narsimha Rao judgement.

Key Points of the Supreme Court’s Judgment on  JMM Bribery case

• Need for Necessity Test or Two-Fold Test: 

  • The Supreme Court said, the individual rights of Parliamentary privileges, has to pass a “necessity test or two-fold test”.
    • Essentiality: It means that for a member to exercise a privilege, the privilege must be such that without it “they could not discharge their functions.”
    • Need to Discharge Duties: Whether the privilege claimed is necessary to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.
    • Naturally, accepting bribes cannot be said to be necessary to discharge one’s functions as a lawmaker, unlike, for example, having the right to free speech

• On Graft-Vote or Vote of Conscience: 

• • Accepting a bribe is an offence as is, and it does not depend on whether the public servant acted differently.
    • Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act: It is not necessary that the act for which the bribe is given be actually performed.

• Legislative Privileges must conform with Constitutional Parameters: 

• • India’s Parliamentary privileges derives from statute and constitutional privileges subject to Judicial review.
  • Establishes Equality under Article 14 in case of bribery offence.

• Parallel Jurisdiction: 

  • Both the judiciary and Parliament can exercise jurisdiction on the actions of lawmakers in parallel. 
  • This is because the purpose of punishment by the House is different from the purpose of a criminal trial.

• House Jurisdiction: 

  • The purpose of the proceedings which a House may conduct is to restore its dignity. Such a proceeding may result in the expulsion from the membership of the House.

• Criminal Trial: 

• • It differs from contempt of the House as it is fully dressed with procedural safeguards, rules of evidence and the principles of natural justice.

• Erosion of Democracy: 

  • Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian Parliamentary democracy.

• Applicability to Rajya Sabha Elections:  

  • The Court clarified that the principles enunciated by the verdict will apply equally to elections to the Rajya Sabha and to appoint the President and Vice-President of India.
    • Accordingly, it overruled the observations in Kuldip Nayar vs Union of India (2006). Kuldip Nayar us Union of India (2006): It held that elections to the Rajya Sabha are not proceedings of the legislature but a mere exercise of franchise and therefore fall outside the ambit of parliamentary privileges under Article 194.

Challenges to Address

• Uncertainty Over Judgments & Laws: Overturning established precedent is one of the major concerns that requires more deep study for symmetrical judgments and rules.
• Impact on Independence of Legislative: Subjecting legislators to criminal prosecution may impact the independence and effectiveness of legislators in fulfilling their duties.
• Challenges in Implementation: The effective implementation may pose logistical and procedural challenges for law enforcement agencies and the judiciary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision on JMM Bribery case is a significant step towards ensuring transparency and accountability in India’s parliamentary system. It would help in maintaining a delicate balance between upholding legislative independence and combating corruption.

DOWNLOAD PDF