Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, and Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra has held Rajya Sabha as a part of basic structure doctrine of constitution.

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the case of Sita Soren v. Union of India.

What was the Background of Sita Soren v. Union of India Case?

• The judgment at hand pertains to the interpretation of parliamentary privilege within the framework of the Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 105 and 194.
• The case involved an allegation of bribery against a legislator who purportedly accepted a bribe but did not vote as allegedly agreed upon.
• The appellant sought protection under Article 194(2) but was denied by the High Court, citing P V Narasimha Rao v. State (1998).
  • The matter was referred to higher benches due to its public importance.
• The final ruling by a larger bench of seven judges in the case, while not deciding on the appellant's guilt, emphasized the need to reconsider the interpretation of parliamentary privilege in cases involving bribery.

What was the Background of P V Narsimha Rao Case?

• Initiation:
  • The P V Narasimha Rao case stemmed from allegations of bribery during a no-confidence motion in the Tenth Lok Sabha in 1991.
  • P V Narasimha Rao, then Prime Minister, faced accusations of orchestrating a criminal conspiracy to secure votes against the motion.
  • Members from the JMM and Janata Dal (Ajit Singh Group) were allegedly bribed to vote against the motion.
  • A subsequent prosecution ensued, questioning the immunity of Members of Parliament (MPs) under Article 105 of the Constitution regarding bribery charges.
• Interpretations of Judges:
  • The case involved differing interpretations among judges.
  • Justice S P Bharucha held that MPs enjoy immunity from prosecution regarding their speech or vote in Parliament.
  • However, Justice S C Agarwal argued that such immunity does not extend to bribery charges.
  • The interpretation of "in respect of" in Article 105(2) was central to the debate.
  • Ultimately, Justice Bharucha's opinion prevailed, affirming immunity for MPs regarding actions directly related to parliamentary duties, including voting and speech, but not for criminal acts like bribery.
• Gist of the Case:
  • This landmark case clarified the scope of parliamentary immunity and its limits concerning criminal prosecutions for bribery.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Rajya Sabha, an Integral Component:
  • The Rajya Sabha or the Council of States performs an integral function in our democracy, and the role played by the Rajya Sabha constitutes part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • Therefore, the role played by elected members of the state legislative assemblies in electing members of the Rajya Sabha under Article 80 is significant and requires utmost protection to ensure that the vote is exercised freely and without fear of legal persecution.
• Parliamentary Privileges:
  • The protection granted under Articles 105 and 194, termed as "parliamentary privilege," extends to various responsibilities and powers exercised by elected members, not just limited to law-making activities on the House floor.
• Revisiting Previous Decisions:
  • The judges asserted the flexibility of the doctrine of stare decisis, allowing a larger bench to reconsider previous decisions, especially when they have wide-ranging implications on public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy.
  • The interpretation given in P V Narasimha Rao case was contrary to the principles of Articles 105 and 194.
• Clarifying Constitutional Parameters:
  • Judges affirmed that immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 cannot be claimed by individual legislators involved in bribery related to their legislative duties.
  • Such immunity fails the essential tests of collective functioning and necessity in discharging legislative duties.
• Views on Bribery:
  • SC observed that bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast.
    • The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee.
  • The offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the agreed action and crystallizes on the exchange of illegal gratification.
  • It does not matter whether the vote is cast in the agreed direction or if the vote is cast at all.
  • SC finally said that the offence of bribery is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe.

What are Parliamentary Privileges under the Constitution?

Articles 105 and 194 are provisions within the Constitution of India, 1950 that deal with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the State Legislature, respectively.

• Article 105:
  • This article deals with the powers and privileges of MPs.
  • MPs are immune from legal proceedings for anything said or any vote given during parliamentary sessions or committee meetings.
    • Likewise, the publication of parliamentary reports and proceedings is protected.
  • The powers, privileges, and immunities of each House of Parliament, its members, and committees are defined by Parliament through law.
  • Until defined, they remain as they were before the enactment of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
  • This also extends to individuals granted the right to speak and participate in parliamentary proceedings as per the Constitution.
• Article 194:
  • This article is similar to Article 105 but pertains to Members of the State Legislature instead of MPs.
  • Members of a State Legislature cannot be held accountable in court for their speech or votes within the Legislature or its committees.
  • The powers, privileges, and immunities of State Legislature Houses, members, and committees are determined by the Legislature itself, or by existing laws until further defined by the Legislature.