New Constitution Bench In Supreme Court To Hear Issues Related To Assam NRC, Reservations In Legislative Assemblies, Immunity For MPs/MLAs In Bribery Cases

As per a recent notification, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will commence hearing three cases of immense constitution significance. The bench will comprise CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Mishra and will take up Assam Public Works v. Union of India, Ashok Kumar Jain v. Union of India, and Sita Soren v. Union of India from September 20, 2023. 

It may be noted that these cases pertain to the Assam NRC, validity of reservations to the Anglo-Indian community, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, and whether MPs and MLAs have immunity from being prosecuted for an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe to cast vote in the legislature respectively.

Assam Public Works v. Union of India

This matter concerns the challenge of the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act inserted by way of an amendment in 1985 in furtherance of the Assam Accord. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is a special provision on the citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord and provides that the people who entered India between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, and have been living in Assam, would be allowed to register themselves as citizens of India. 

Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, a Guwahati based civil society organisation had challenged Section 6A way back in 2012. It argued that Section 6A is discriminatory, arbitrary, and illegal insofar as it provides for different cut-off dates for regularising illegal migrants who entered Assam and the rest of India. It sought the Court's indulgence in directing the concerned authority to update the National Register of Citizens (NRC) with respect to the State of Assam based on the details incorporated in the NRC prepared in 1951 as opposed to updating the same by taking account of the electoral rolls prior to 24.03.1971. Eventually, other organisations from Assam filed petitions challenging the validity of Section 6A.

When the matter was heard by the Apex Court in 2014, a two-judge Bench led by Justice Rohinton Nariman referred the matter to a Constitution Bench, which was eventually constituted on 19.04.2017 and comprised Justices Madan B Lokur, RK Agarawal, Prafulla Chandra Pant, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. Since all the judges in the said Bench, except now CJI DY Chandrachud, had retired since, CJI Lalit then constituted a bench comprising the then Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha. Yet again, owing to the retirement of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari, the Constitution Bench was reconstituted. 

Ashok Kumar Jain v. Union of India

This case pertains to a challenge to the validity of the 79th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1999, which altered Article 334 of the Constitution to allow reservations to the AngloIndian community, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. It may be noted that the provision was initially meant to operate for 10 years. However, owing to the subsequent amendments to the provision, the reservations for SC/ST communities stood extended to 80 years and the reservations meant for the Anglo-Indian community were extended to 70 years. The case was admitted in the year 2000 with the petitioner contending that the aforementioned amendment violated Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution because it repeatedly extended restricted reservations, which undermined equal representation and democratic rights of those who did not belong to the reserved communities. In 2003, a Division Bench of Supreme Court referred the matter to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench. In 2009, the Parliament for the sixth time, amended Article 334 and further extended the reservations for a period of 70 years for SC/ST and Anglo-Indian communities. 

Sita Soren v. Union of India

Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha was accused of accepting bribe for the purpose of voting in favour of a particular candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha Elections. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Challenging the same, Soren filed a petition before the Jharkhand High Court on the ground that she enjoyed immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, 1950, which contemplates, 'no member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature'. The High Court dismissed the petition. During the course of hearing, the appeal before the Apex Court reliance was placed on the judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, which upheld the immunity enjoyed by the parliamentarians under Article 194(2) from prosecution for taking bribes in relation to parliamentary vote. The Supreme Court, then, thought it fit to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench that could reconsider its judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State. The issue framed for reference was -

"Whether Article 105/194 (2) of the Constitution of India confers any immunity on the Members of Parliament/Legislative Assembly from being prosecuted for an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe to caste vote in a legislature?"