Immunity To MPs, MLAs Does Not Cover Criminal Acts Like Bribe-Taking, Says Supreme Court
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2023-09-21 06:38:35
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
The Supreme Court has decided to take a relook at its 1998 verdict in the JMM 'bribe-for-vote' case in which MPs and MLAs were granted immunity for their actions inside the house even though they had taken bribes to vote, or not vote, in a particular manner. A 5-judge bench had then granted immunity relying upon Article 105(2) of the Constitution which said that legislators could not be prosecuted for their actions inside the house. But the 5-judge bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud now hearing another bribery matter related to voting for Rajya Sabha seats in Jharkhand in which Sita Soren of JMM is involved, was of the view that "the object (of immunity from prosecution to MPs and MLAs under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution) clearly is not to set them apart as persons who weild higher privileges in terms of immunity from the application of general criminal laws of the land which citizens of the land do not possess". Hence, it referred the matter to a 7-judge bench which CJI Chandrachud said will be constituted soon.
In the hearing in the instant case involving Sita Soren, the court made an additional pertinent observation when it said that "bribe-taking itself is a crime and does not depend on bribe-taker's consequential action inside a house". This observation was made when Soren argued that though she could not be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act as she had taken the bribe to vote for a particular candidate but in the end she had voted for the candidate of her party, the JMM. The very fact that she had accepted the bribe made her liable to prosecution and it did not matter how she voted.
The court categorically stated that the immunity granted to MPS and MLAs under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) was to enable them to discharge their legislative and political duties inside the House without fear of prosecution for the manner in which they speak or vote. But that does not mean immunity from any criminal act. Taking bribe is a crime and the court has decided to reexamine whether the blanket immunity granted to MPs and MLAs in this regard in the 1998 JMM bribery verdict is correct or not.
