Immunity won’t protect legislators taking bribes to vote in Parliament from criminal prosecution: Supreme Court
- March 5, 2024
- Posted by: OptimizeIAS Team
- Category: DPN Topics
No Comments
Immunity won’t protect legislators taking bribes to vote in Parliament from criminal prosecution: Supreme Court
Subject: Polity
Section: Parliament
Context:
- The Supreme Court of India, led by a seven-judge Bench, delivered a unanimous decision stating that parliamentary privilege or immunity does not shield legislators from criminal prosecution for bribery related to voting or speaking in Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies.
Historical Overruling:
- This ruling overturns a 1998 Supreme Court decision (the JMM bribery case judgment) that previously granted lawmakers immunity from corruption prosecution if their bribed actions were executed as part of their legislative functions.
- Chief Justice of India’s Observations:
- The Chief Justice emphasized that privileges and immunities should not be used to evade the general law, highlighting that corruption undermines the essence of Indian parliamentary democracy.
- He clarified that the act of bribery is considered complete once the corruption money is accepted, irrespective of the legislator’s subsequent actions within the House.
Implications for Parliamentary Immunity:
- The Court rejected the notion that reducing parliamentary immunity would unjustly expose opposition members to a criminal investigation, arguing instead that bribed lawmakers compromise the constitution’s aspirational and deliberative ideals, thereby weakening democracy.
- Criteria for Immunity:
- The judgment specified that parliamentary immunity could only be invoked to preserve the dignity and authority of the legislative body or in the exercise of a legislator’s rights to free speech and protest.
- Any claim for immunity that does not meet these criteria would not be accepted.
- The Court recognized that criminal courts and legislative houses have concurrent jurisdiction over bribery allegations, stating that one does not negate the jurisdiction of the other.
Background of the Appeal:
- The ruling came in response to an appeal by JMM leader Sita Soren, accused of accepting a bribe during the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections.
- The case revisited the controversial JMM bribery scandal of 1993 involving payments to MPs, including Sita Soren’s relatives, to secure their votes during a no-confidence motion against the then government.
- Reaffirmation of Rule of Law: Chief Justice Chandrachud concluded that granting MPs immunity from bribery prosecution would undermine parliamentary democracy and contravene the rule of law, firmly positioning the judiciary against corruption within legislative bodies.
Parliamentary Privileges:
- Parliamentary privileges are special rights, immunities and exemptions enjoyed by the two Houses of Parliament, their committees and their members.
- These privileges are defined in Article 105 of the Indian Constitution.
- Under these privileges, the members of Parliament are exempted from any civil liability (but not criminal liability) for any statement made or act done in the course of their duties.
- The privileges are claimed only when the person is a member of the house.
- As soon as s/he ends up being a member, the privileges are said to be called off.
- Parliament has not made any special law to exhaustively codify all the privileges. They are rather based on five sources:
- Constitutional provisions
- Various laws made by Parliament
- Rules of both the Houses
- Parliamentary conventions
- Judicial interpretations
Privileges:
- Freedom of Speech in Parliament:
- The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19(2) is different from the freedom of speech and expression provided to a member of the parliament.
- It has been guaranteed under Article 105(1) of the Indian constitution. But the freedom is subject to rules and orders which regulate the proceedings of the parliament.
- Limitations:
- Freedom of speech should be in accordance with the constitutional provisions and subject to rules and procedures of the parliament, as stated under Article 118 of the Constitution.
- Under Article 121 of the Constitution, the members of the parliament are restricted from discussing the conduct of the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court.
- Freedom from Arrest:
- The members enjoy freedom from arrest in any civil case 40 days before and after the adjournment of the house and also when the house is in session.
- No member can be arrested from the limits of the parliament without the permission of the house to which s/he belongs so that there is no hindrance in performing their duties.
- If the detention of any members of the parliament is made, the chairman or the speaker should be informed by the concerned authority, of the reason for the arrest.
- But a member can be arrested outside the limits of the house on criminal charges against him under the Preventive Detention Act, the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA), the National Security Act (NSA), or any such act.
- Right to Prohibit the Publication of Proceedings:
- Article 105(2) of the Constitution, no person shall be held liable for publishing any reports, discussions etc. of the house under the authority of the member of the house.
- For paramount and national importance, it is essential that the proceedings should be communicated to the public to aware them of what is going on in the parliament.
- Right to Exclude Strangers:
- The members of the house have the power and right to exclude strangers who are not members of the house from the proceedings. This right is very essential for securing free and fair discussion in the house.
Source: TH