Today, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) are not immune from prosecution for Bribery charges under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution. This judgment overturned a previous verdict delivered in 1998, known as the "PV Narasimha Rao v. State" case, which granted legislators immunity from such accusations.
The Court clarified that the existing immunity protects legislators only for their speech and votes within the legislative houses, not for criminal acts like bribery. Accepting a bribe, regardless of whether it influences a vote, is now considered a criminal offense and will be subject to legal proceedings. This ruling extends to the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament, and encompasses the election of its Vice-President.
The case originated from an appeal filed by Sita Soren, who was accused of taking a bribe in exchange for a vote during the 2012 Rajya Sabha election. The 1998 judgment, which protected MPs from prosecution even in such cases, had previously shielded her from legal action.
During the case, arguments presented:
Sita Soren: Advocated for a broader interpretation of the immunity granted under Article 105(2), allowing politicians greater freedom of speech without fear of legal repercussions.
Attorney General: Opined that immunity should only apply to speech and actions essential for legislators to fulfill their duties without undue fear or consequences.
The Court's reasoning for the new verdict (No immunity for Bribery) emphasizes that the intended purpose of immunity is to facilitate free and open discussions within the legislature, not to shield individuals from criminal activity. Accepting a bribe, the Court stated, undermines the very foundation of Indian democracy and cannot be protected by the immunity provisions.