NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to examine whether lawmakers can claim complete immunity for their conduct inside Parliament or assemblies and be exempted from facing prosecution even in cases of taking bribes for voting in a particular manner or for raising questions in the House.
Nearly 24 years after a five-judge Constitution ben- ch by a 3:2 majority held in the JMM bribery case that MPs cannot be prosecuted in a criminal court for allegedly taking bribes for voting in the House, a bench of same strength will now take a call on whether the 1998 verdict needs a relook and said that it would refer the case to a larger bench, if needed.
Interestingly, the instant case also emanated from allegations against a JMM leader who allegedly took a bribe for casting her vote as an MLA in the Rajya Sabha election in 2012. The then MLA Sita Soren, daughter-in-law of Shibu Soren, was allowed to be prosecuted by the Jharkhand high court and she thereafter moved the SC challenging the order.
As both the parties involved in the proceedings – the Centre and Sita Soren – took the stand that the apex court’s 1998 verdict was right, a bench of Justices S Abdul Najeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and B V Nagarathna appointed senior advocate P S Patwalia and lawyer Gaurav Agrawal to assist the court in deciding the issue by placing before it the opposite views.
“If we accept the majority verdict in P V Narasimha Rao case, then the matter ends here. But if not, then it has to go to a larger bench,” the court said.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, and Soren’s lawyer senior advocate Raju Ramachandran told the bench there is nothing wrong in the 1998 verdict and that Sita Soren’s case should be decided based on that ruling.
Ramachandran said the Jharkhand high court wrongly applied the 1998 judgment against his client. But the bench said that since the case has been referred to the Constitution bench, the issue has to be examined as to what is the extent of immunity granted to lawmakers under the Constitution.
The CBI had earlier told the SC that Sita Soren could not claim immunity like her father-in-law did in the 1993 JMM MPs bribery case.
The Election Commission had in April 2012 had countermanded the RS elections from Jharkhand and handed over the probe to the CBI following allegations of bribery. In its chargesheet, the CBI had accused Sita Soren of receiving Rs 1.5 lakh for proposing the nomination and also voting in favour of Raj Kumar Agarwal, an independent candidate.
Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution say that “no member of Parliament and legislature of state shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him or her in Parliament or any committee thereof”.
In March, 2019, the apex court had referred the case of Sita Soren to the Constitution bench and said, “Having considered the matter we are of the view that having regard to the wide ramifications of the question that has arisen, the doubts raised and the issue being a matter of substantial public importance, we should be requesting for a reference of the matter to a larger bench to hear and decide the issue.”
While deciding JMM bribery case, two judges on the bench had taken the view that the protection under Article 105(2)/194(2) cannot extend to cases of bribery for making a speech or casting a vote in a particular manner in the House. The majority held that the court should not lead to a narrow construction of the constitutional provisions, which may have the effect of impairing the guarantee to effective parliamentary participation and debate.
Nearly 24 years after a five-judge Constitution ben- ch by a 3:2 majority held in the JMM bribery case that MPs cannot be prosecuted in a criminal court for allegedly taking bribes for voting in the House, a bench of same strength will now take a call on whether the 1998 verdict needs a relook and said that it would refer the case to a larger bench, if needed.
Interestingly, the instant case also emanated from allegations against a JMM leader who allegedly took a bribe for casting her vote as an MLA in the Rajya Sabha election in 2012. The then MLA Sita Soren, daughter-in-law of Shibu Soren, was allowed to be prosecuted by the Jharkhand high court and she thereafter moved the SC challenging the order.
As both the parties involved in the proceedings – the Centre and Sita Soren – took the stand that the apex court’s 1998 verdict was right, a bench of Justices S Abdul Najeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and B V Nagarathna appointed senior advocate P S Patwalia and lawyer Gaurav Agrawal to assist the court in deciding the issue by placing before it the opposite views.
“If we accept the majority verdict in P V Narasimha Rao case, then the matter ends here. But if not, then it has to go to a larger bench,” the court said.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, and Soren’s lawyer senior advocate Raju Ramachandran told the bench there is nothing wrong in the 1998 verdict and that Sita Soren’s case should be decided based on that ruling.
Ramachandran said the Jharkhand high court wrongly applied the 1998 judgment against his client. But the bench said that since the case has been referred to the Constitution bench, the issue has to be examined as to what is the extent of immunity granted to lawmakers under the Constitution.
The CBI had earlier told the SC that Sita Soren could not claim immunity like her father-in-law did in the 1993 JMM MPs bribery case.
The Election Commission had in April 2012 had countermanded the RS elections from Jharkhand and handed over the probe to the CBI following allegations of bribery. In its chargesheet, the CBI had accused Sita Soren of receiving Rs 1.5 lakh for proposing the nomination and also voting in favour of Raj Kumar Agarwal, an independent candidate.
Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution say that “no member of Parliament and legislature of state shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him or her in Parliament or any committee thereof”.
In March, 2019, the apex court had referred the case of Sita Soren to the Constitution bench and said, “Having considered the matter we are of the view that having regard to the wide ramifications of the question that has arisen, the doubts raised and the issue being a matter of substantial public importance, we should be requesting for a reference of the matter to a larger bench to hear and decide the issue.”
While deciding JMM bribery case, two judges on the bench had taken the view that the protection under Article 105(2)/194(2) cannot extend to cases of bribery for making a speech or casting a vote in a particular manner in the House. The majority held that the court should not lead to a narrow construction of the constitutional provisions, which may have the effect of impairing the guarantee to effective parliamentary participation and debate.