ORDER :

1. The Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 17 February 2014 of the High Court of Jharkhand in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 128 of 2013.

2. An election was held on 30 March 2012 for two members of the Rajya Sabha representing the State of Jharkhand. The appellant was a member of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. The allegation against the appellant is that she accepted a bribe from an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favour. However, as borne out from the open balloting for the Rajya Sabha seat, she did not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver and instead cast her vote in favour of a candidate belonging to her own party. The round of election in question was rescinded and a fresh election was held at which the appellant voted in favour of the candidate belonging to her own party.

3. The appellant moved the High Court for quashing the charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings instituted against her. The appellant relied on the provisions of Article 194(2) of the Constitution. The High Court by the impugned judgment declined to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the appellant had not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver and thus, is not entitled to the protection under Article 194(2).

4. The judgment of the High Court has given rise to the present appeal.

5. On 23 September 2014, when the proceedings were placed before a bench of two judges of this Court, the Court was of the view that since the issue arising for consideration is “substantial and of general public importance” it should be placed before a larger bench of three judges of this Court.

6. On 7 March 2019, when a Bench of three judges of this Court took up the appeal, it noted that the gravamen of the charge against the appellant is that she had accepted a bribe to vote in favour of a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha election for a member representing Jharkhand. The precise question, as the three Judge Bench observed, was dealt with in a judgment of a Bench of five judges in P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC 626. Two judges on the Bench, Justice S.C. Agarwal and Justice A.S. Anand, took the view that the immunity granted under Article 105(2) and correspondingly, under Article 194(2) of the Constitution would not extend to cases where bribery for making a speech or voting in a particular manner in the House is alleged. However, the view of the majority was to the contrary.

7. The three-judge Bench hearing the present appeal was of the view that “having regard to the wide ramification of the question that has arisen, the doubts raised and the issue being a matter of public importance”, it required to be referred to a larger Bench, as may be considered appropriate. Accordingly, the matter has been placed, pursuant to the administrative directions of the Chief Justice of India, before this Bench of five judges.

8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to note that prior attempts to challenge the correctness of the constitutional position in P.V. Narsimha Rao have not borne fruit. Review petitions (Review Petition Nos. 2210-27/1998) were instituted before a Bench of five judges of this Court questioning the correctness of the decision in P.V. Narsimha Rao. The petitions for review were dismissed on 18 July 2002 on the ground of a delay of 179 days in filing the review petitions, reported as State (CBI/SPE) vs. P.V. Narasimha Rao, (2001) 9 SCC 249.

9. In addition to the above, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution (Writ Petition (Civil) diary No 7490/99) seeking a declaration on the correctness of the position in P.V. Narsimha Rao was instituted before this Court. By an order dated 1 May 2000 in Centre for PIL and Another vs. Union of India, (2000) 9 SCC 393 a Bench of three judges of this Court referred the petition to a Bench of five judges while noting a submission regarding the maintainability of the petition. Even