20-09-2023 : The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step by deciding to reexamine its 1998 ruling that granted lawmakers immunity from criminal prosecution in cases where they were alleged to have accepted bribes in exchange for making speeches or casting votes in Parliament or state legislatures. This development marks a potential shift in the legal landscape surrounding the accountability of elected representatives.
The decision was made by a 5-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and consisting of Justices A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. The bench questioned whether the constitutional provisions safeguarding the freedom of speech for Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) inherently provide immunity against criminal proceedings when they are accused of violating criminal laws unrelated to their legislative functions.
The bench’s statement highlighted the primary purpose of Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) of the Constitution, which is to ensure that lawmakers can fulfill their responsibilities in a climate of freedom without fearing legal consequences for their parliamentary speeches or voting decisions. However, it emphasized that these provisions do not intend to categorize members of the legislature as individuals with superior privileges, granting them immunity from general criminal laws that apply to all citizens.
The 1998 judgment in the P.V. Narasimha Rao versus CBI case had established that parliamentarians enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution specifically concerning their parliamentary speeches and votes, citing Article 105 of the Constitution. Article 105 grants immunity to MPs regarding “anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.” Similar immunity is granted to Members of State Legislatures by Article 194(2).
The current reexamination of this legal doctrine stems from a case involving Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), who faced criminal charges for allegedly accepting a bribe in exchange for her vote during the Rajya Sabha elections in 2012. In 2019, a 3-judge bench led by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi referred this matter to a larger bench. The referral was based on the broad implications of the issue, the doubts raised, and the significant public interest surrounding it.
This decision by the Supreme Court to revisit the question of legislative immunity has far-reaching implications for the Indian legal system, as it could redefine the boundaries of immunity enjoyed by lawmakers and enhance accountability in cases involving corruption and criminal behavior unrelated to their parliamentary duties. It reflects the evolving dynamics of democracy and the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that elected representatives are held to the highest standards of ethics and legality.