Author: Km. Vanshika, Uttaranchal University, Law College, Dehradun
TO THE POINT
The maxim that no person is above the law constitutes the philosophical foundation of every constitutional democracy. In theory, elected representatives are expected to act as trustees of public power and are therefore subject to higher standards of accountability than ordinary citizens. In practice, however, lawmakers often operate within a protected legal sphere created by constitutional immunities, statutory safeguards, and political conventions. This duality gives rise to a persistent and troubling question: do lawmakers truly remain accountable under the law, or has immunity evolved into a political shield that places them beyond effective legal scrutiny?
In India, the debate surrounding immunity and accountability has intensified due to the increasing criminalisation of politics, frequent allegations of corruption, and the strategic misuse of investigative processes. While immunity is constitutionally justified as a functional necessity to ensure free and fearless legislative functioning, its misuse has eroded public faith in democratic institutions. The political class frequently invokes privilege not as a safeguard for democracy but as a defence against prosecution. This article critically analyses whether the existing framework of immunity aligns with constitutional values or undermines the rule of law.
USE OF LEGAL JARGONS
The legal architecture governing immunity of lawmakers is anchored in constitutional doctrines such as the rule of law, equality before law, separation of powers, parliamentary sovereignty, and constitutional morality. Legislative immunity refers to legally sanctioned protection granted to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies to enable uninhibited discharge of legislative functions. Parliamentary privilege, codified under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution of India, grants immunity for speeches made and votes cast within the legislative chambers.
However, this privilege operates in tension with Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. The doctrine of reasonable classification has been invoked to justify differential treatment of legislators, but such classification must withstand the test of non-arbitrariness. Criminal accountability of lawmakers is further complicated by procedural requirements such as prior sanction for prosecution, discretionary powers of investigative agencies, and delays in adjudication. The transformation of immunity into impunity raises serious concerns regarding abuse of power, erosion of democratic accountability, and weakening of constitutional governance.
THE PROOF
Empirical data and judicial observations reveal the systemic failure of accountability mechanisms in relation to lawmakers. A substantial number of sitting legislators face pending criminal cases, including offences involving moral turpitude, corruption, and violence. Despite constitutional guarantees, trials against legislators are often delayed for years, undermining both deterrence and justice. Immunity, though limited in scope, is frequently cited to stall investigations or challenge prosecution.
The requirement of prior sanction to prosecute public officials has historically served as a procedural barrier that delays justice. Political control over investigative agencies further compromises impartiality. Judicial pronouncements have repeatedly expressed concern over the misuse of power and selective prosecution. The absence of internal disciplinary mechanisms within political parties exacerbates the problem, as electoral considerations often override ethical governance. These realities collectively demonstrate that immunity, when unchecked, operates as a political instrument rather than a constitutional safeguard.
ABSTRACT
This article examines the constitutional and political dimensions of immunity enjoyed by lawmakers in India and its implications for democratic accountability. It analyses the historical rationale behind legislative privileges, their constitutional basis, and their contemporary misuse. Through a critical evaluation of constitutional provisions, judicial precedents, and political practices, the article argues that while limited immunity is essential to protect legislative independence, excessive or unregulated immunity undermines the rule of law. The article concludes that reinforcing accountability through judicial oversight, legislative reform, and political responsibility is indispensable to preserving democratic legitimacy.
CASE LAWS
1. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI) (1998):
The Supreme Court held that Members of Parliament enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) for acts directly connected with parliamentary speech or voting. While intended to preserve legislative freedom, this judgment was criticised for enabling corruption under the guise of privilege, thereby diluting accountability.
2. Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007):
The Court clarified that parliamentary privileges are subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review. It reaffirmed that immunity cannot be absolute and must operate within the framework of constitutional supremacy.
3. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006):
The Supreme Court emphasised constitutional morality and held that political decisions, even when taken under constitutional authority, are subject to judicial scrutiny if they undermine democratic principles.
4. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI (2014):
The Court struck down Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, holding that differential protection for senior officials violated Article 14 and reinforced the principle of equality before law.
5. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013):
The Supreme Court held that legislators stand immediately disqualified upon conviction, strengthening political accountability and rejecting legislative protection post-conviction.
6. Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014):
The Court highlighted the concept of constitutional morality and emphasised that those in public office must adhere to higher ethical standards.
CONCLUSION
The politics of immunity and accountability reflects a constitutional paradox inherent in democratic governance. While immunity is necessary to preserve legislative autonomy and protect lawmakers from frivolous litigation, its misuse undermines public trust and weakens the rule of law. Lawmakers cannot be perceived as being above the law in a constitutional democracy committed to equality, justice, and accountability. Judicial interventions have attempted to strike a delicate balance, but enduring reform requires legislative self-restraint, political will, and societal vigilance. Strengthening fast-track courts, ensuring transparency in prosecution, and enforcing ethical standards within political parties are imperative to restore democratic credibility.
FAQS
1. Why are lawmakers granted immunity?
Lawmakers are granted immunity to ensure free and independent legislative functioning without external pressure or intimidation.
2. Is legislative immunity absolute in nature?
No, immunity is limited to acts directly connected with legislative functions and remains subject to constitutional scrutiny.
3. Does immunity violate Article 14 of the Constitution?
Immunity constitutes a reasonable classification only when it serves a legitimate constitutional purpose and is not abused.
4. Can lawmakers be prosecuted for criminal offences?
Yes, lawmakers can be prosecuted for criminal acts unrelated to legislative duties, subject to procedural safeguards.
5. What reforms are necessary to enhance accountability?
Time-bound trials, removal of unnecessary procedural barriers, judicial oversight, and political commitment to ethical governance are essential.
