Introduction 

This is a landmark judgment discussing the extent of legislative immunity granted under Article 105 (2) and Article 194 (2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).   

• This judgment was delivered by a 7-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narsimha, JB Pardiwala and Sanjay Kumar.  

Facts 

• An election to elect two members of Rajya Sabha was held on 30th March 2012 to elect members of Rajya Sabha. 
• The allegation against appellant, belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, was that she accepted a bribe from an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favor. 
• However, since there is an open balloting system in Rajya Sabha it was found that the appellant had voted the member of her party. 
• The appellant moved the High Court to quash the chargesheet and the criminal proceedings instituted against her. 
• The High Court declined to quash the same on the ground that the appellant did not vote the person she took bribe from and by applying the ratio in PV Narsimha Rao v. State (1998) the Court refused to quash the case against the appellant. 
• A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court doubted the correctness of the decision of PV Narsimha Rao v. UOI (1998) and referred the matter to a larger bench. 
• Thus, the seven-judge bench was constituted to look into the correctness of the law laid down in PV Narsimha Rao v. UOI (1998).  

Issue Involved

• What is the extent of immunity enjoyed by Legislator under Article 105 (2) or Article 194 (2) of COI? 
• Does a legislator enjoy immunity for accepting bribes to vote in the Parliament or Assembly? 

Observations 

• The following points were laid down by the Court: 
  • A larger Bench of this Court can reconsider a decision rendered by a previous Bench. Thus, the doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law. 
  • Unlike the House of Commons in the UK, India does not have ‘ancient and undoubted’ privileges which were vested after a struggle between Parliament and the King. 
    • Privileges in pre-independence India were governed by statute in the face of a reluctant colonial government. 
  • Whether a claim to privilege in a particular case conforms to the parameters of the Constitution is amenable to judicial review. 
  • A claim to immunity must fulfill the two tests: Firstly, it must be tethered to collective functioning of the House and secondly, it must be necessary to the discharge of essential duties of Legislator.  
    • An individual member cannot assert claim of privilege to claim immunity from the charge of bribery. 
  • Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution seek to sustain an environment in which debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature. This purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner because of an act of bribery. 
  • The offence of bribery is complete when the legislator accepts the bribe and it does not matter if the vote is casted in the agreed direction or not. 
  • Corruption and bribery by members of legislature erode probity in public life. 
  • The jurisdiction of the Court to prosecute a criminal offence and the authority of the House to take action for breach of discipline exist in different spheres.  
    • The scope, purpose and consequences of both are different. 
  • The interpretation in PV Narsimha v. UOI (1998) has resulted in a paradoxical outcome where a person who took bribery did not vote can be prosecuted but a person took bribery and voted cannot be prosecuted. This is not in spirit of Article 105 and Article 194 of COI. 
  • The words ‘in respect of’, ‘arising out of’ or ‘bearing a clear relation to’ cannot be interpreted to mean anything which may even have a remote relation with the speech or vote given. 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in this case overturned a longstanding controversial ratio. This judgment will go a long way in protecting the sanctity of democracy in our country. Corruption is a disease that does not let any democracy function properly. The decision of PV Narsimha Rao v. UOI (1998) legitimized corruption. The overturning of this decision has finally resulted in an interpretation that is in consonance with the Constitutional and democratic principles.