Bribe for vote: MPs, MLAs won't get immunity from prosecution, rules SC

In 2023, the SC said it would reconsider the judgement in the 1998 case involving the Rao government.

A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, on March 4, held that lawmakers will face prosecution if they are found to be taking a bribe for making a speech or voting a certain way in Parliament.

The court held that bribery erodes probity in public life and an immunity for bribery cannot be sustained in law. Furthermore, the court noted that bribery is an independent offence and is not covered under the immunity granted by constitution for words said and actions done in the house.

The judgment has, thus, overruled the 25-year judgment in Narasimha Rao's case.

Shortly after the judgment, Prime Minister Narendra Modi took to microblogging site X, hailing the historic verdict of the apex court.

"A great judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system", the Prime Minister wrote.

SWAGATAM!

Related stories

• 
  Right-wing YouTuber taunts CJI after shoe-hurling incident: ‘Lousy, undeserving judge'
• 
  US Supreme Court rejects appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell, imprisoned former girlfriend of Jeffrey Epst...
• 
  Will urge Supreme Court to allow use of green firecrackers on Diwali: Delhi CM Rekha Gupta

A great judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system.https://t.co/GqfP3PMxqz

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) March 4, 2024

The seven-judge bench, in its ruling, noted, "To give any privilege unconnected to the functioning of Parliament or legislature will lead to creating a class that enjoys unchecked exemptions from the operation of law of the land". The bench further stated, "Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the functioning of democracy".

The judgment comes close on the heels of the alleged 'cash for query scam' involving now-expelled Lok Sabha MP from Trinamool Congress, Mahua Moitra. The judgment will also likely have an impact on allegations of cross-voting by MLAs in the recently concluded Rajya Sabha (RS) elections.

As per the Constitution, members of Parliament and state Assemblies enjoy immunity for their actions and speeches inside the respective houses. However, the leader of the house can suspend or remove a member for unethical behaviour.

Article 105 of the Constitution allows freedom of speech in the Parliament. To uphold the same, MPs must not be prosecuted in a court of law for what they said or how they voted in the House.

According to Article 105 (2), “No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.”

Members of a state legislative Assembly also enjoy similar immunity from prosecution for anything said or a vote cast in the assembly, as per Article 194 of the Constitution.

The question of whether an MP can be prosecuted in a court of law for taking a bribe to speak or vote on an issue has been considered by the Supreme Court twice – 25 years apart.

In 1998, SC ruled that legislators were immune to prosecution on bribery charges for their speech or vote in parliament because Article 105 (2) confers immunity on them.

In October 2023, the SC decided to revisit the 1998 judgment on following grounds:

1.    The intent behind granting immunity to lawmakers is only to enable free speech in parliament and the legislature. However, it may not be for immunity from criminal proceedings for a violation of criminal laws independent of their rights and duties as a member of parliament or a state legislature.

2.    What would happen if a lawmaker received a bribe not to speak or vote on an important issue? Would the immunity still apply?

3.    If a lawmaker accepts a bribe and subsequently does not fulfil the purpose for which the bribe was taken, would it still be an offence?

The judgment comes four months after the case was heard and reserved in October 2023.