SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 180

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, A. S. BOPANNA, M. M. SUNDRESH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. B. PARDIWALA, SANJAY KUMAR, MANOJ MISRA
Sita Soren – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaushik Laik, AOR Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashay Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Shashank Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. K Parmeshwar, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Aor, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.C. Dhananjay, Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Mritunjay Pathak, Adv. Ms. Honey Kumbat, Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR Ms. Tanya Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Janhavi Dubey, Adv. Mr. Deepak Malik, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Ms. Shivani Vij, Adv. Ms. Tricha Chandan, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Madhav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Arav Pandit, Adv. Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Adv. Ms. Dhanakshi Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Mr Sahib Kochhar, Adv. Ms. Shreya Arora, Adv. Mr. Randeep Sachdeva, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.

Table of Contents

A.

Reference

B.

Overview of the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao

C.

Submissions

D.

Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao does not violate the principle of stare decisis

E.

History of parliamentary privilege in India

F.

Purport of parliamentary privilege in India

I.

Functional analysis

II.

Parliamentary privilege as a collective right of the House

III.

Necessity test to claim and exercise a privilege

G.

Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege

I.

Bribery is not in respect of anything said or any vote given

II.

The Constitution envisions probity in public life

III.

Courts and the House exercise parallel jurisdiction over allegations of bribery

IV.

Delivery of results is irrelevant to the offence of bribery

H.

International position on bribery vis-a-vis privileges

I.

United Kingdom

II.

United States of America

III.

Canada

IV.

Australia

I.

Elections to the Rajya Sabha are within the remit of Article 194(2)

J.

Conclusion

1. Parliamentary privilege, codified in Articles 105 and

                            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                            1
                            2
                            3
                            4
                            5
                            6
                            7
                            8
                            9
                            10
                            11
                            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                            supreme today icon
                            logo-black

                            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                            Please visit our Training & Support
                            Center or Contact Us for assistance

                            qr

                            Scan Me!

                            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                            whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                            whatsapp-icon Back to top