Legislators cannot claim immunity from prosecution for taking bribes for speech/ vote in the house: Supreme Court (SC)

Link copied successfully!

In Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024), a seven-judge constitution bench of the SC overruled its 1998 judgment in the PV Narasimha Rao case.

Key highlights of Judgement:
- Bribery is not immune: MPs/MLAs accused of taking bribes cannot claim any immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.
  - Article 105 (2) confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee.
  - Article 194(2) grants similar protection to MLAs.
- Two-fold test: Assertion of a privilege by an individual MP/MLA would be governed by a twofold test:
  - privilege claimed has to be connected to collective functioning of the House, and
  - its necessity must bear a functional relationship to the discharge of essential duties of a legislator.
- Jurisdiction of criminal court: Criminal courts are not excluded from hearing bribery cases against legislators merely because it may also be treated by the House as contempt or a breach of its privilege.
- Scope of parliamentary privileges: Purpose of parliamentary privilege to provide legislators platform to “speak” and “vote” without fear is equally applicable to:
  - elections to the Rajya Sabha and
  - elections for the President and Vice President.

In the case, allegations had arisen that legislators of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha had accepted bribes to vote in favour of the government during a no-confidence motion in 1993.
In a 3:2 majority judgment, a five-judge SC Bench held that legislators enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery as per Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) of the Constitution.