SC set up seven-member bench to review 1998 verdict

SC set up seven-member bench to review 1998 verdict

Subject: Polity

Section: Parliament

Context: The Supreme Court referred a 1998, 5-judge Constitution Bench judgement in the P V Narasimha Rao case to a 7-judge Bench

More about the news:

• Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has set up a seven-judge bench that will reconsider the correctness of 1998 five-judge Constitution bench judgment in the P V Narasimha Rao case wherein the majority held that legislators were immune to prosecution on bribery charges for their speech or vote in Parliament.
• The bench, to be presided by the CJI, will also comprise Justices A S Bopanna, M MSundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra.
• A notice issued by the SC said the bench will start hearing the matter from October 4, 2023.

What is the issue:

• The P V Narasimha Rao case refers to the 1993 JMM bribery case, in which Shibu Soren and some of his party MPs were accused of taking bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion against the then P V Narasimha Rao government.
• The SC had quashed the case against the JMM MPs, citing immunity under Article 105(2).
• Recently, the matter came up in another case related to bribery charges against JMM MLA Sita Soren, who was accused of having accepted a bribe to vote for an independent candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections.
• She moved the Jharkhand HC for quashing the chargesheet and criminal proceedings against her, relying on the provisions of Article 194 (2), but the HC had declined to do so.
• She then approached the SC, where a 2-judge Bench in 2014 opined that since the issue was “substantial and of general public importance”, it should be placed before a larger Bench of 3 judges.
• In 2019, a Bench of 3 judges noted that the SC dealt with the issue in the Narasimha Rao verdict, and hence should be referred to a larger Bench.
• Taking up the matter, a 5-judge Constitution Bench presided by CJI recently said that the larger Bench would deal with the question of correctness of the view of the majority in P V Narsimha Rao case on the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution.
• The object of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) is not to set apart the members of the Legislature as persons who wield immunity from the application of the general criminal law of the land.

What was the P.V. Narsimha Rao Case (1998):

• In this case, the question arose that under Article 105(2) does any member of parliament have any immunity to protect himself in criminal proceedings against him.
• The apex court by a 3:2 majority granted immunity from prosecution (under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 to MPs who took bribes and voted to save the then Congress government in Parliament.

What are 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.
• Article 105 of the Constitution expressly mentions two privileges, that is, freedom of speech in Parliament and right of publication of its proceedings.
• Apart from the privileges as specified in the Constitution, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides for freedom from arrest and detention of members under civil process.
• The privileges are claimed only when the person is a member of the house.  As soon as she/he ends up being a member, the privileges are said to be called off.
• This immunity extends to certain non-members as well, such as the Attorney General of India or a Minister who may not be a member but speaks in the House.
• 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.