MPs, MLAs Can't Claim Immunity From Prosecution In Bribery Cases, Says SC; PM Modi Hails Ruling

NEW DELHI: In a monumental ruling, the Supreme Court of India on Monday said that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) cannot shield themselves from prosecution when faced with charges of bribery concerning votes or speeches within the legislative bodies.

PM Modi Hails SC Ruling

Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed the historic ruling of the apex court. In a post on X, the PM said, ''A great judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system.''

 

SWAGATAM!

A great judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system.https://t.co/GqfP3PMxqz — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) March 4, 2024

 

SC Overturns Ruling In 1998 Narasimha Rao Case

A seven-judge Constitution bench, with resounding unanimity, overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment, a case that had hitherto extended immunity to lawmakers from bribery charges related to parliamentary voting. "Bribery isn't protected by parliamentary privileges. The interpretation of the 1998 verdict contradicts Constitutional Articles 105 and 194," declared the bench, emphasizing the pivotal role of integrity in public office.

 

Seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court rules that an MP or MLA can't claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with the vote/speech in the Parliament/ Legislative Assembly.

Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench in its unanimous view overruled… pic.twitter.com/xJ4MRWvpoO — ANI (@ANI) March 4, 2024

 

Parliamentary Privileges Revisited: Upholding Integrity In Governance

The apex court vehemently rejected the notion that accepting bribes by legislators constitutes a privilege, asserting that such actions undermine the ethical fabric of public service. "Granting unconnected privileges would breed a class exempt from the rule of law," it admonished, underscoring the indispensable nature of parliamentary privileges for the effective functioning of legislative bodies.

 

Supreme Court says we disagree with the judgment in PV Narasimha and the judgment in PV Narasimha which grants immunity to legislators for allegedly bribery for casting a vote or speech has “wide ramifications and overruled”.

— ANI (@ANI) March 4, 2024

 

Reaffirming the sanctity of Constitutional provisions, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of parliamentary privilege to encompass not only collective legislative functions but also electoral processes such as Rajya Sabha elections and presidential appointments. The interpretation of the PV Narasimha judgment was deemed antithetical to the Constitutional ethos, creating a paradoxical scenario where legislators enjoyed immunity for illicit conduct.

Legal Clarity: Legislators To Be Held Accountable

Addressing the core issue of accountability, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the offence of bribery is cemented upon the acceptance of illegal gratification, irrespective of subsequent legislative actions. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay concurred, affirming that legislators engaging in corrupt practices would be subject to prosecution without any special treatment.

Preserving Democratic Integrity: Upholding The Spirit Of Justice

The ramifications of this verdict extend far beyond legal corridors, resonating profoundly within the democratic framework of India. By dismantling the shield of immunity, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that integrity and accountability are paramount in sustaining parliamentary democracy.

Following exhaustive deliberations, a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and six other esteemed justices reserved its order in October, recognizing the gravity of the issues at hand. The referral to a larger seven-judge bench underscored the significance of the matter, signalling a watershed moment in the moral fabric of the nation's polity.

Constitutional Mandate: Ensuring Freedom With Responsibility

In elucidating the purpose behind Article 105(2) and Article 194(2), the top court emphasized the imperative of fostering an environment where elected representatives can discharge their duties with autonomy and accountability, free from the spectre of undue influence or corruption.