Context:

This Article is based on the news “JMM bribes for votes ruling: How Supreme Court interpreted privilege for lawmakers” which was published in the Indian Express. Recently, a seven judge Constitution 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 Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.

No Immunity For MPs/MLAs Taking Bribe For Vote/Speech In Legislature: Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment.
• The bench said the 1998 judgment has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy and there is grave danger of this court allowing an error to be perpetrated.

Background of the Supreme Court On Bribe For Vote Case

• Allegation Against Sita Soren Case: 

  • Allegation against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MLA Sita Soren for accepting a bribe from an Independent candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. 

• Judicial Approach: 

• • High Court: She moved the Jharkhand High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings against her, citing provisions of Article 194 (2). But the HC declined to do so. 
  • Appeal to the Supreme Court (2014): She then approached the SC, where a two-judge Bench in September 2014 opined that since the issue was “substantial and of general public importance”, it should be placed before a larger bench of three judges.
  • Referral to Larger Bench (2019): A bench of three judges took up the appeal and noted that the HC judgment dealt with the 1998 verdict, and hence should be referred to a larger bench, and it was ultimately referred to the seven-judge bench.

Key Highlights of the Supreme Court On Bribe For Vote Case

• No Immunity on Bribery: 

  • Members of the House cannot claim immunity for actions such as accepting bribery, damaging public property, committing violence, etc.

• Bribery not Immune: 

  • Bribery is not protected under Article 105(2) and Article 194, even if it’s unrelated to the casting of votes or decision making.

• No Violation of the Doctrine of Stare decisis: 

  • The Supreme Court said that it can change prior rulings, such as in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case, if it has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy.
    • The doctrine of stare decisis: It is a legal principle that obligates judges to adhere to prior verdicts while ruling on a similar 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 deals with ‘offence relating to public servants being bribed’. The mere “obtaining”, “accepting” or “attempting” to obtain an undue advantage with the intention to act or forbear from acting in a certain way is sufficient to complete the offence. 
    • 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 derive from statute and constitutional privilege, subject to judicial review.

• Equality Under Article 14: 

  • The Court said it wo uld bea violation of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution to create an illegitimate class of public servants and such a classification would be manifestly arbitrary.

• 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 and other consequences which the law envisages
    • 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. 
    • It is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive and representative 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 vs 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.

Significance of the Supreme Court On Bribe For Vote Case

• Upholding Basic Structure Doctrine: As the judgment upholds the judicial review, one of the souls of Basic Structure Doctrine of the Indian Constitution.
• Combating Corruption: By eliminating the immunity for legislators facing bribery charges.
• Promoting Accountability & Transparency: By clarifying that bribery offences are not immune from prosecution, the judgment would ensure accountability and transparency.
• Strengthening Integrity of the House: It will strengthen the integrity of the house, as accepting bribery to make a speech undermines it.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: By ensuring equal treatment under the law by eliminating the special privileges for bribery accused legislators. It is in accordance with the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

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.

About Parliamentary Privileges

• Availability of Special Rights: 

  • Parliamentary privileges are special rights, immunities and exemptions enjoyed by the two Houses of Parliament, their committees and their members.
    • Same is enjoyed by the Legislatures of the States.

• Constitutional Provisions For Parliamentary Privileges

  • Article 105(2) of the Constitution: It states that, no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Parliament or any committee thereof.
    • As per article, no person also shall be so liable 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) of the Constitution: It provides identical protections to members of State Assemblies.

• Components of Parliamentary Privilege:

  • House Exercises Collectively: It would include the power to punish for its contempt, the power to conduct its own affairs, among others. 
  • For Individual Rights: It says exercise of free speech by each member. 

• Purpose of Parliamentary Privileges:

• • To Create A Fearless Atmosphere: In a fearless atmosphere, debates, deliberations and exchange of ideas can take place within the Houses of Parliament and the state legislatures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision 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.