Author: Yeddu Meghana, Student at Osmania University
On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of India issued a ruling in the Sita Soren v. Union of India case. The court determined that since this privilege does not protect to anything said or voted on, it does not safeguard parliamentary privilege. The House and courts have simultaneous concurrent jurisdiction over claims of bribery, and the Constitution calls for integrity and honesty in public service.
In Sita Soren vs Union of India, addressing a complicated constitutional issue pertaining to parliamentary privileges and their boundaries concerning bribery allegations against lawmakers was addressed. The case deals with a person called Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, who is accused of accepting a bribe at the time of 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. The main question was whether Article 194(2) of the Indian Constitution protected a lawmaker who was alleged to have accepted a bribe in exchange for voting in the legislature.
In this case, a seven -judge bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, who was India’s Chief Justice at that time, has overturned the P V Narasimha Rao vs State which is a twenty-five year old ruling. The P V Narasimha Rao judgement was given by a five-judge bench on 3:2 basis. Here, it was held that legislators would be liable for prosecution only if they refused to cast votes or give speech despite taking the bribe. The legislators were immune from legal proceedings in bribery cases related to their speech or vote in their house.
Members of Parliament (MPs) are protected from prosecution for whatever speech or vote they make in Parliament by Article 105(2). Members of State Legislatures are granted comparable protection under Article 194(2). The case re-examined the seminal P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. State (1998) ruling that MPs who accepted bribes but carried out their agreed-upon votes or speeches in the assembly were protected by Article 105(2)
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, leading the seven-judge Constitution Bench re-examined the Narasimha Rao precedent. Three main factors were emphasised by the Court:
1. Scope of Parliamentary Privilege: The Court underlined that the purpose of parliamentary privileges is to guarantee that lawmakers carry out their responsibilities free from outside interference or fear. These rights do not, however, cover illegal actions like bribery, which compromise the democratic process.
2. In the case of Bribery and Legislative Immunity, the Court ruled that receiving a bribe constitutes a crime in and of itself, regardless of whether the legislator goes on to cast a vote or make the promised speech. Therefore, it is not covered by Article 194(2).
3. International Comparisons: The Court strengthened its position that no parliamentary system provides immunity for corrupt conduct by drawing on examples from other democracies, including the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and other developed nations.
The Court pointed out contradictions and moral dilemmas in the 1998 Narasimha Rao ruling, in which the majority gave immunity to MPs who carried out bribery deals. In that case, Justice S.C. Agarwal’s dissenting opinion, which argued against bribing immunity, was accepted as the accurate interpretation. The Court pointed out that maintaining the majority opinion in Narasimha Rao would continue the dichotomy that a lawmaker is protected if they uphold a corrupt agreement but not if they break it, which is against the law and public confidence.
In Narasimha Rao ruling , it was held that the lawmakers were immune from prosecution I bribery cases related to their speech or vote in the house. Whereas in the case of Sita Soren vs Union of India, all the privileges given in the PV Narasimha Rao case were taken back and they will not be applicable henceforth. In this Sita Soren case, the main point around which it revolved is section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In the Prevention of Corruption Act, section 7 deals with a public servant, who by chance accepts to obtain from any human, any of the advantage which is undue with the intention of performing of a duty towards public inappropriately or without any ounce of honesty or cause of forbearance done either by himself or by any other public servant.
This ruling strengthens the values of accountability and probity in public life and represents a turning point in Indian constitutional law. It establishes a precedent for close examination of lawmakers’ behaviour by making it clear that parliamentary privileges are not an excuse for unethical behaviour. Additionally, the ruling strengthens the judiciary’s responsibility in preserving democratic institutions’ integrity. The offence of bribery is complete on the acceptance of money or agreement to accept money is being concluded.
Finally, the verdict held that bribery is not immune under the article 105(2) as well as article 194.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s decision in Sita Soren v. Union of India confirms that parliamentary immunity is intended to safeguard legislative integrity rather than individual wrongdoing. By reversing a contentious precedent, the Court upholds India’s dedication to the rule of law and clean governance, guaranteeing that lawmakers continue to answer to the people they represent. Finally, we can notice that the bribery charges of lawmakers are not under the umbrella of Parliamentary privileges. The system has finally settled the scores by bringing a change in the lawbreakers who are lawmakers as well.
FAQS
*What is the immunity of the MP?
Inviolability: Members of Parliament cannot be held responsible for the opinions they express or the votes they cast in the exercise of their duties. This immunity is absolute and permanent, meaning that it applies even after their mandate has ended.
* What are the political reasons for corruption in India?
The causes of corruption in India are varied and may include excessive regulations, discretionary powers, weak rule of law, ineffective regulatory systems and monopoly of government-controlled institutions on certain goods and services delivery, lack of culture of transparency and accountability.
