No immunity for MPs, MLAs taking bribe to vote: SC
A seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud held that a five-judge bench's interpretation in the 1998 verdict in the JMM bribery case was contrary to Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution
PTI
New Delhi, 4 March
MPs and MLAs taking bribes to vote
or make a speech in the House are not immune from prosecution, the Supreme
Court said on Monday in a landmark, unanimous verdict that overrules its 1998
judgment protecting such lawmakers.
Observing that bribery is not
protected by parliamentary privileges, a seven-judge constitution bench headed
by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud held that a five-judge bench's interpretation
in the 1998 verdict in the JMM bribery case was contrary to Articles 105 and
194 of the Constitution.
Describing the judgment as
"great", Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a post on X that it
would "ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the
system".
Articles 105 and 194 deal with the
powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs in the Parliament and the legislative
assemblies. "Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode
probity in public life," the CJI, who read the operative part of the
verdict, said while pronouncing the verdict on Monday.
The bench also comprised Justices AS
Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra.
In 1998, the five-judge constitution bench held in its majority verdict on the
Narasimha Rao versus CBI case that parliamentarians have immunity against
criminal prosecution for any speech made and vote cast inside the House under
Articles 105(2) and 194(2). The seven-judge bench was reconsidering the 1998
judgement.
While pronouncing the verdict, the
CJI said Article 105 of the Constitution seeks to sustain an environment to
have deliberations by the lawmakers in the House and this atmosphere is
vitiated when a member is bribed to deliver a speech.
Justice Chandrachud said the
privileges claimed must have a nexus to the collective functioning of the House
and must have a relationship with the essential functions of a legislator which
he or she has to discharge. The seven-judge bench had reserved its judgement in
the matter on October 5 last year.
During the arguments, the Centre
had submitted that bribery can never be a subject matter of immunity and a
parliamentary privilege is not meant to place a lawmaker above law. The top
court, in the course of the hearing, had said it will examine whether the
immunity granted to lawmakers from prosecution for taking bribes to make a
speech or vote in Parliament and state legislatures extends to them even if
criminality is attached to their actions.
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *