2024 Supreme(SC) 180

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, SANJAY KUMAR, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Sita Soren – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019
Decided On : 04-03-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege. Clause (2) of Article 105 does not grant immunity against bribery to any person as receipt of or agreement to receive illegal gratification is not in respect of function of a member to speak or vote in House. An individual member of legislature cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity under Articles 105 and 194 from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with a vote or speech in legislature. Such a claim to immunity fails to fulfil twofold test that claim is tethered to collective functioning of House and that it is necessary to discharge of essential duties of a legislator.
(2) Constitution envisions probity in public life. Courts and House exercise parallel jurisdiction over allegations of bribery. Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to casting of vote or ability to decide on how vote should be cast. Same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in House or a Committee. Corruption and bribery by members of legislatures erode probity in public life. Potential of misuse against individual members of legislature is neither enhanced nor diminished by recognizing jurisdiction of court to prosecute a member of legislature who is alleged to have indulged in an act of bribery.
(3) Doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law.
(4) Protection under Articles 105 and 194 guarantees that vote of an elected member of Parliament or State Legislature, cannot be subject of proceedings in court. It does not guarantee a “secret ballot”. Purpose of parliamentary privilege under Article 194(2) is not to provide legislature with anonymity in their votes or speeches in Parliament but to protect them from legal proceedings pertaining to votes which they cast or speeches which they make. That content of votes and speeches of their elected representatives be accessible to citizens is an essential part of parliamentary democracy.
(5) Bribery – Offence of a public servant being bribed is pegged to receiving or agreeing to receive undue advantage and not actual performance of act for which undue advantage is obtained – Mere demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was sufficient, regardless of whether recipient of bribe performed the act for which bribe was received.

Headnote:

(A) Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength – Bench of lesser strength cannot disagree with or dissent from view of law taken by Bench of larger strength – However, Bench of same strength can question correctness of a decision rendered by a co-ordinate bench – In such situations, case is placed before a Bench of larger strength. (Para 24)

(B) Doctrine of stare decisis – Doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law – Ability of Supreme Court to reconsider its decisions is necessary for organic development of law and advancement of justice – If Supreme Court is denuded of its power to reconsider its decisions, Supreme development of constitutional jurisprudence would virtually come to a standstill – In the past, this Court has not refrained from reconsidering a prior construction of Constitution if it proves to be unsound, unworkable, or contrary to public interest – Doctrine of stare decisis promotes certainty and consistency in law; Court should not make references to reconsider a prior decision in a cavalier manner; and a settled position of law should not be disturbed merely because an alternative view is available – However, Supreme Court has power to reconsider its decisions in certain circumstances including considerations of public policy or public good and to remedy continued injustice. (Paras 31 and 35)

(C) Constitution of India – Articles 105 and 194 – Parliamentary privilege – Parliamentary privilege, codified in Articles 105 and 194 of Constitution, is integral to deliberative democracy in facilitating functioning of a parliamentary form of governance – In a deliberative democracy, aspirations of people are met by discourse in democratic institutions – Privilege of citizens to scrutinise proceedings in Parliament is a concomitant right of a deliberative democracy which is a basic feature of Constitution – Parliament is a quintessential public institution which deliberates on actualisation of aspirations of all Indians – Fulcrum of parliamentary privileges under a constitutional and democratic set up is to facilitate legislators to freely opine on business before House – Freedom of speech in legislature is a privilege essential to every legislative body – A deliberative democracy imagines deliberation as an ethic of good governance and is not restricted to parliamentary sphere alone. (Paras 46, 47, 48 and 65)

(D) Constitution of India – Articles 105 and 194 – Parliamentary privilege – It has been a timeless insistence of legislators that their freedom of speech to carry out their essential legislative functions be protected and sanctified – Parliament or State Legislature is not the sole Judge of what privileges it enjoys and secondly, Parliament or legislature may only claim privileges which are essential and necessary for functioning of House – Privilege exercised by members individually is in turn qualified by its necessity, in that the privilege must be such that without which they could not discharge their functions – Privilege of an individual member only extends insofar as it aids House to function and without which House may not be able to carry out its functions collectively – Privileges enshrined under Articles 105 and 194 of Constitution are of widest amplitude but to the extent that they serve aims for which they have been granted – Framers of Constitution would not have intended to grant to legislatures those rights which may not serve any purpose for the proper functioning of House – A House of Parliament or Legislature functions through collective will of its individual members – These members acting as constituents of House may not claim any privilege or immunity unconnected with working of entire House – Exercise of privileges individually by members must be tested on anvil of whether it is tethered to healthy and essential functioning of House – Assertion of a privilege by an individual member of Parliament or Legislature would be governed by a twofold test – First, privilege claimed has to be tethered to collective functioning of House, and second, its necessity must bear a functional relationship to discharge of essential duties of a Legislator. (Paras 74, 75, 77, 82, 83, 84 and 91)

(E) Constitution of India – Articles 105 and 194 – Parliamentary privilege – Scope and ambit – Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege – Clause (2) of Article 105 does not grant immunity against bribery to any person as receipt of or agreement to receive illegal gratification is not in respect of function of a member to speak or vote in House – Prosecution for bribery is not excluded from jurisdiction of criminal court merely because it may also be treated by House as contempt or a breach of its privilege – A speech made in Parliament or Legislature cannot be subjected to any proceedings before any court – However, other acts such as damaging property or criminal acts may be subjected to prosecution despite being within precincts of House – Privileges are not an end in themselves in a Parliamentary form of government – Purpose and object for which Constitution stipulates powers, privileges and immunity in Parliament must be borne in mind – Corruption and bribery of members of legislature erode foundation of Indian Parliamentary democracy – It is destructive of aspirational and deliberative ideals of Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive and representative democracy – Offence of bribery is complete on acceptance of money or on agreement to accept money being concluded – Offence is not contingent on performance of promise for which money is given or is agreed to be given – Issue of bribery is not one of exclusivity of jurisdiction by House over its bribe-taking members – Purpose of a House acting against a contempt by a member for receiving a bribe serves a purpose distinct from a criminal prosecution – Purpose of proceedings which a House may conduct is to restore its dignity – Such a proceeding may result in expulsion from membership of House and other consequences which law envisages – Prosecution for an offence operates in a distinct area involving a violation of a criminal statute – Power to punish for criminal wrongdoing emanates from power of State to prosecute offenders who violate criminal law – Latter applies uniformly to everyone subject to sanctions of criminal law of land – Purpose, consequences and effect of two jurisdictions are separate – Criminal trial differs from contempt of House as it is fully dressed with procedural safeguards, rules of evidence and principles of natural justice – Bribery is not immune under clause (2) of Article 105 – A member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is unrelated to their ability to vote or to make a decision on their vote. (Paras 99, 101, 104, 107, 110, 111 and 188)

(F) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 – Bribery – Under Section 7 of P.C. Act, mere “obtaining”, “accepting” or “attempting” to obtain an undue advantage with intention to act or forbear from acting in a certain way is sufficient to complete offence – It is not necessary that act for which bribe is given be actually performed – First explanation to provision further strengthens such an interpretation when it expressly states that “obtaining, accepting, or attempting” to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if performance of a public duty by a public servant has not been improper – Offence of a public servant being bribed is pegged to receiving or agreeing to receive undue advantage and not actual performance of act for which undue advantage is obtained – Mere demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was sufficient, regardless of whether recipient of bribe performed the act for which bribe was received. (Paras 117 and 121)

(G) Constitution of India – Articles 105 and 194 read with Article 80 – Parliamentary privilege – Rajya Sabha or Council of States performs an integral function in working of our democracy and role played by Rajya Sabha constitutes a part of basic structure of Constitution – Role played by elected members of State Legislative Assemblies in electing members of Rajya Sabha under Article 80 is significant and requires utmost protection to ensure that vote is exercised freely and without fear of legal persecution – Free and fearless exercise of franchise by elected members of legislative assembly while electing members of Rajya Sabha is necessary for dignity and efficient functioning of State legislative assembly – Any other interpretation belies text of Article 194(2) and purpose of parliamentary privilege – Protection under Articles 105 and 194 has been colloquially called a parliamentary privilege and not legislative privilege for a reason – It cannot be restricted to only law-making on floor of House but extends to other powers and responsibilities of elected members which take place in Legislature or Parliament, even when House is not sitting. (Para 187)

Facts of the case:

Would a legislator who receives a bribe to cast a vote in a certain direction or speak about certain issues be protected by parliamentary privilege? It is this question of constitutional interpretation that this Court is called upon to decide.

Findings of Court:

Interpretation which has been placed on the issue in question in the judgment of the majority in P.V. Narasimha Rao [(1998) 4 SCC 626] results in a paradoxical outcome where a legislator is conferred with immunity when they accept a bribe and follow through by voting in the agreed direction. On the other hand, a legislator who agrees to accept a bribe, but eventually decides to vote independently will be prosecuted. Such an interpretation is contrary to the text and purpose of Articles 105 and 194.

Result : Reference answered.