Bribery Not Protected by Parliamentary Privilege, Rules Supreme Court - 2024-03-04

Bribery Not Protected by Parliamentary Privilege, Rules Supreme Court

Background

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India has ruled that members of Parliament (MPs) and state legislatures (MLAs) are not immune from prosecution for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The judgment comes in response to a reference made by a three-judge bench in 2023, which doubted the correctness of a 1998 Supreme Court decision in PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE).

Legal Question

The legal question before the Court was whether the immunity granted to MPs and MLAs under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution extends to the offence of bribery.

Arguments Presented

Arguments in Favor of Immunity:

• The appellant, represented by senior counsel Raju Ramachandran, argued that the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao (supra) is well-reasoned and should not be reconsidered.
• The appellant contended that the immunity is necessary to protect MPs and MLAs from being oppressed by the power of the executive.
• It was argued that the concept of parliamentary privilege is not in derogation of the rule of law but is a distinct feature of India's constitutional structure.

Arguments Against Immunity:

• The Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, argued that the decision in PV Narasimha Rao (supra) is inapplicable to the present case as the election of members to the Rajya Sabha does not fall within the ambit of Article 194(2).
• Amicus curiae PS Patwalia submitted that the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao (supra) has been doubted on multiple occasions and that the minority judgment reflects the correct position of law.
• It was argued that the offence of bribery is complete before the MP or MLA enters the House and therefore has no connection with the vote or speech that may be made in Parliament.
• It was contended that the majority judgment results in an anomalous situation where an MP who accepts a bribe but does not cast a vote can be prosecuted, while a member who casts a vote is given immunity.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Court, in its judgment, analyzed the provisions of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court held that the expression "in respect of" in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) must be interpreted narrowly and does not extend to the offence of bribery.

The Court reasoned that the object of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) is to ensure the independence of legislators for the healthy functioning of parliamentary democracy.

However, the Court held that immunity from prosecution for bribery would place MPs and MLAs above the law and would be repugnant to the healthy functioning of parliamentary democracy and subversive of the rule of law.

The Court also noted that the international trend is that legislators are liable to be prosecuted for bribery in connection with their legislative activities.

Decision

The Court concluded that the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao (supra) is incorrect and that neither MPs nor MLAs enjoy immunity from prosecution for bribery under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution.

Significance

The judgment is a significant development in Indian constitutional law and has the potential to strengthen the fight against corruption in public life.