No immunity for Legislators taking Bribes

Table of Contents

Context: A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India made a landmark ruling regarding the immunity of lawmakers facing bribery charges related to their speech and votes in Parliament.

Background of No immunity for Legislators taking Bribes

Appeal Background: The context involves an appeal by JMM leader Sita Soren, related to the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections.
Accusations: Sita Soren faced allegations of accepting a bribe to vote for a specific candidate during the elections.
Defense and Denial: Despite initial accusations, Sita Soren refuted her involvement, claiming she voted for her party’s official nominee.
Legal Developments: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) proceeded to file a chargesheet against her.
Judicial Decisions: The Jharkhand High Court declined to dismiss the chargesheet filed against Sita Soren.
Supreme Court Involvement: Following the High Court’s decision, Sita Soren appealed to the Supreme Court for relief.

Which ‘Articles’ deal with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs?

Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution: It deals with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs in the Parliament and the legislative assemblies.
- The legal shield provided to lawmakers under these articles protects them from prosecution.
- These provisions were put in place to ensure that MPs and MLAs can work without the fear of legal action being taken against them.
- They grant them freedom of speech and protect them from being prosecuted for their remarks in the House or any vote they may participate in.

1998 Judgement

In the PV Narasimha Rao case (1998), allegations had arisen that legislators of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) had accepted bribes to vote in favour of the government during a no-confidence motion in 1993.
The Supreme Court had ruled with a 3:2 majority that MPs and MLAs were immune from prosecution in bribery cases as long as they fulfilled their end of the bargain.

We’re now on WhatsApp. Click to Join

Remarks by the Seven-Judge Bench on the 1998 Judgement

Impact of the 1998 Verdict: The seven-judge bench acknowledged that the 1998 majority verdict carries significant implications for public interest, maintaining probity in public life, and the integrity of parliamentary democracy.

Concurrent Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court declared that both judicial and parliamentary bodies possess parallel authority to address lawmaker misconduct, underlining the distinct purposes of punitive actions by the House and criminal proceedings.
Articles 105 and 194 Do Not Shield Bribery: The court clarified that immunity provisions under Articles 105(2) and 194 do not cover acts of bribery.
- Engaging in bribery is identified as a criminal behaviour that does not align with the essential responsibilities of casting a vote or making a decision on a vote, similarly applicable to speeches within the House or its committees.
Protection Against Corruption: Emphasising the need to prevent creating a class of individuals who are exempt from legal accountability, the court warned against granting broad protections that could encourage unchecked misconduct.
Potential Damage to Democracy: The verdict stressed that corruption and bribery among legislators pose a serious threat to the foundational principles and the effective functioning of Indian parliamentary democracy.

Cash For Votes Scandals

2008 Cash-for-Vote Scandal

Context: The controversy revolved around a confidence vote in the Lok Sabha on July 22, 2008, following the withdrawal of support by the CPI(M)-led Left Front over disagreements concerning the Indo-US nuclear deal.

2015 Cash-for-Votes Scandal

Following the Precedent: This scandal occurred in 2015, echoing the previous scandal from 2008 but involving different political figures and context.
Key Figures: Key individuals from the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) in Telangana were implicated, including MLA Revanth Reddy.
Bribery Allegations: The scandal centred on video evidence showing TDP leaders attempting to bribe a nominated MLA, Elvis Stephenson, for his vote in the 2015 Telangana Legislative Council elections.
Arrest and Legal Proceedings: Revanth Reddy was apprehended by Telangana Police during a bribe offer of Rs. 50 lakhs to Stephenson and was subsequently jailed.
Political Repercussions: The scandal drew media attention, especially footage involving N Chandrababu Naidu, then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, leading to political accusations of a motivated scandal by the TDP against the Telangana state government and the YSR Congress Party.
Judicial Outcome: The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana later granted bail to Revanth Reddy and two co-accused due to insufficient evidence.