Parliamentarians to be prosecuted for taking bribes to speak in House: Supreme Court
A seven-judge bench of top court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, said that bribery erodes probity in public life.
- Mar 4, 2024,
- Updated Mar 4, 2024 11:16 AM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday set aside the immunity granted to parliamentarians against prosecution for taking bribes to cast votes in the Parliament. A seven-judge bench of top court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, said that bribery erodes probity in public life.
With this, the top court overruled a 1998 verdict which granted lawmakers immunity from prosecution for taking bribes to make speeches and vote in the legislature. In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 105 (2) granted immunity to legislators from bribery prosecution.
However, in October 2023, the court decided to reconsider the 1998 judgment, questioning if immunity should extend to violations of criminal laws unrelated to parliamentary duties, if it applies when a bribe is accepted but not acted on, and what happens when a bribe is taken to suppress speech or voting.
"Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105 (2) or 194 of the constitution, it erodes probity in public life," Bar & Bench quoted the top court as saying. This implies that parliamentarians will face criminal prosecution if they are found to be taking a bribe for making a speech or for voting on certain issues in the Parliament.
CJI Chandrachud said that Article 105 seeks to sustain an atmosphere to have deliberations on vital issues, while adding this environment is 'vitiated' when an MP takes bribe to deliver a speech.
"An individual legislator cannot claim immunity as claim is tethered to collective functioning of the house. Article 105 seeks to sustain an environment to have deliberations and thus this atmosphere is vitiated when a member is bribed to deliver a speech," CJI Chandrachud said.
As per the Constitution, parliamentary and state Assembly members have immunity for their actions and speeches within the houses, but a house leader can suspend or remove a member for unethical behaviour. Article 105 of the Constitution safeguards parliamentary free speech, protecting MPs from prosecution for their statements or votes in the House. Similar protection extends to state Assembly members under Article 194.
The verdict in this case was a unanimous one by the constitution bench. "We have independently adjudicated on all aspects of the controversy. Do parliamentarians enjoy immunity? We disagree and overrule majority on this aspect," the CJI said. This ruling follows the alleged 'cash for query scam' involving expelled Lok Sabha MP, Mahua Moitra of Trinamool Congress. The decision may also impact allegations of cross-voting in the recent Rajya Sabha elections.
The Supreme Court on Monday set aside the immunity granted to parliamentarians against prosecution for taking bribes to cast votes in the Parliament. A seven-judge bench of top court, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, said that bribery erodes probity in public life.
With this, the top court overruled a 1998 verdict which granted lawmakers immunity from prosecution for taking bribes to make speeches and vote in the legislature. In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 105 (2) granted immunity to legislators from bribery prosecution.
However, in October 2023, the court decided to reconsider the 1998 judgment, questioning if immunity should extend to violations of criminal laws unrelated to parliamentary duties, if it applies when a bribe is accepted but not acted on, and what happens when a bribe is taken to suppress speech or voting.
"Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105 (2) or 194 of the constitution, it erodes probity in public life," Bar & Bench quoted the top court as saying. This implies that parliamentarians will face criminal prosecution if they are found to be taking a bribe for making a speech or for voting on certain issues in the Parliament.
CJI Chandrachud said that Article 105 seeks to sustain an atmosphere to have deliberations on vital issues, while adding this environment is 'vitiated' when an MP takes bribe to deliver a speech.
"An individual legislator cannot claim immunity as claim is tethered to collective functioning of the house. Article 105 seeks to sustain an environment to have deliberations and thus this atmosphere is vitiated when a member is bribed to deliver a speech," CJI Chandrachud said.
As per the Constitution, parliamentary and state Assembly members have immunity for their actions and speeches within the houses, but a house leader can suspend or remove a member for unethical behaviour. Article 105 of the Constitution safeguards parliamentary free speech, protecting MPs from prosecution for their statements or votes in the House. Similar protection extends to state Assembly members under Article 194.
The verdict in this case was a unanimous one by the constitution bench. "We have independently adjudicated on all aspects of the controversy. Do parliamentarians enjoy immunity? We disagree and overrule majority on this aspect," the CJI said. This ruling follows the alleged 'cash for query scam' involving expelled Lok Sabha MP, Mahua Moitra of Trinamool Congress. The decision may also impact allegations of cross-voting in the recent Rajya Sabha elections.