Do MPs/MLAs Have Immunity From Prosecution For Offence Of Taking Bribes For Votes In Legislature? Supreme Court To Hear On Nov 15

A 5-Judge Bench comprising Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna noted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State. Though the Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta agreed, he submitted that the said judgment was passed by a Constitution Bench, in a 3:2 split. He argued that revisiting the said judgment as was mentioned in the reference order might not be effective as the Bench taking up the present case and the one that passed the judgment in P.V. Narasimha are of equal strength. He added that though the majority decision constitutes the opinion of 3 judges, in view of the latest judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court that larger bench judgment will prevail regardless of the number of judges in majority.

During the course of the brief hearing, Justice Nagarathna noted, "question is, is it the act within the house or the entire scope of the act has to be considered, immunity is there for the entire act or not."

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?"

[Case Status: Sita Soren v. UoI Crl. A. No. 451/2019]