• UGI USER
  • Mar 06, 2024
  • 16 Likes
  • 0 Comments

UPHOLDING PARLIAMENTARY INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Syllabus:

GS 2: 

  • Indian Constitution : Significant Provisions
  • Parliament and State Legislatures : Privileges and Issues Arising out of these.

Why in the News?

  • The recent Supreme Court rulings on parliamentary privileges and the JMM bribery case mark significant milestones in India’s quest to uphold integrity and accountability in its legislative processes.
  • They tackle longstanding issues of legal immunity for lawmakers accused of bribery, emphasizing probity in parliamentary operations.
  • Rectifying past anomalies, they also stress the protection of deliberative spaces and transparency in governance.
Source: HT

Background:

  • The JMM bribery case, which occurred during the P.V. Narasimha Rao government, sparked controversy over the legal immunity granted to MPs who accepted bribes.
  • The distinction between ‘bribe-givers’ and ‘bribe-takers’ left many questioning the integrity of India’s parliamentary democracy.
  • The recent Supreme Court rulings have sought to address these concerns by rejecting the notion of parliamentary privilege extending to bribery charges and emphasizing the detrimental impact of corruption on democratic ideals.
Understanding Parliamentary Privileges

Definition: 

Parliamentary privileges are the rights and immunities granted to members of Parliament (MPs) to facilitate the unhindered discharge of their duties without external interference.

Sources of Privileges:

Derive from the Constitution, parliamentary conventions, laws enacted by Parliament, rules of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and judicial interpretations.

Co-terminus with Membership:

·    Privileges applicable only during the individual’s tenure as a member of the house.

·    Cease upon the cessation of membership.

Disciplined Proceedings:

·    Essential for conducting parliamentary proceedings and functions in a disciplined and undisturbed manner.

Specifications in India:

·    Detailed in the Constitution, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, and Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha.

Limitations:

·    Not absolute; subject to certain limits.

·    MPs expected to use privileges responsibly and avoid personal gain.

·    Constitutional Provisions Related to Parliamentary Privileges:

Constitutional Provisions Related to Parliamentary Privileges:

1.  Constitutional Articles:

·    Article 105 and Article 122 outline parliamentary privileges.

·    Articles 194 and 212 pertain to privileges of state governments.

2.  Freedom of Speech:

·    Article 105 ensures freedom of speech in Parliament without fear of legal consequences.

·    Similar provisions for State Legislatures in Article 194.

3.  Validity of Proceedings:

·    Articles 122 and 212 safeguard the validity of proceedings in Parliament and State Legislatures, respectively.

Classification of Parliamentary Privileges:

1.  Individual Privileges:

·    Rights and immunities for individual MPs and State Legislature members.

·    Examples:

o   Freedom from arrest during the session.

o   Exemption from jury service during sessions.

2.  Collective Privileges:

·    Rights and immunities for both Houses of Parliament and State Legislatures.

·    Examples:

o   Freedom of speech for members.

o   Right to exclude strangers from proceedings.

About Individual Privileges:

Members’ Freedom

·    Freedom from arrest during parliamentary sessions and 40 days before/after.

·    Immunity from legal proceedings for statements in Parliament.

·    Exemption from jury service during sessions.

About Collective Privileges:

Rights of the Houses:

·    Right to publish reports, debates, and proceedings.

·    Right to exclude strangers from proceedings.

·    Right to make rules for regulating procedure.

·    Right to punish members and outsiders for breaching privileges.

·    Courts prohibited from inquiring into House proceedings.

Arrest Authorization: No person can be arrested without presiding officer’s permission.

 

Key Points from the Supreme Court Rulings:

Correction of Legal Anomaly:

  • The Supreme Court overruled its previous judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State (CBI/SPE) (1998), which granted immunity to MPs against bribery charges.
  • The ruling emphasizes the importance of probity in parliamentary functioning and ensures that lawmakers are held accountable for corrupt practices.

Clarification on Parliamentary Privileges:

  • The court clarified that parliamentary privilege, as enshrined in Article 105 (for MPs) and Article 194 (for State legislators), aims to protect freedom of speech and independence in legislative proceedings.
  • However, this privilege does not extend to acts of bribery, as they undermine the integrity of parliamentary democracy and are not essential to legislative functions.

Protection of Legislative Functions:

  • While voting in legislative bodies is a privileged function protected under the Constitution, accepting bribes is not considered part of lawmakers’ duties.
  • The ruling emphasizes the need for lawmakers to exercise their voting rights freely, without fear of legal persecution, to uphold the integrity of the legislative process.

Upholding Public Expectations:

  • The verdict aligns with public expectations that elected representatives should not engage in corrupt practices or act under monetary inducements.
  • By holding lawmakers accountable for bribery charges, the ruling reinforces public trust in the democratic process and promotes ethical conduct among elected officials.

Affirmation of Right to Equality:

  • The Supreme Court’s decision affirms the right to equality by rejecting the creation of a privileged class of public servants afforded extraordinary protection.
  • This underscores the need for lawmakers to be held accountable for their actions, irrespective of their position or status.

Interpretation of Constitutional Principles:

  • The ruling interprets parliamentary privileges in light of broader constitutional principles, emphasizing their alignment with the larger ideals of the Constitution.
  • Unlike members of the UK’s House of Commons, Indian lawmakers do not possess undoubted rights and privileges but must discharge their duties in accordance with constitutional values.

Challenges and Implications:

  • While the rulings address legal anomalies regarding parliamentary privileges, enforcing accountability and prosecuting lawmakers accused of bribery may pose challenges.
  • The ruling may face challenges in balancing accountability with protecting the rights of opposition legislators, particularly in contentious political environments.
  • Upholding the spirit of the verdict will require collaborative efforts from the executive, judiciary, and legislative branches to safeguard democratic principles and promote transparency in governance.

 

Impact of the Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court’s rulings on parliamentary privileges and the JMM bribery case represent significant steps towards promoting integrity and accountability in India’s legislative processes.
  • By rejecting the notion of parliamentary immunity in bribery cases, the rulings uphold the principles of democracy and strengthen public trust in elected representatives.

Conclusion:

Moving forward, it is essential to uphold the spirit of the verdicts and ensure that deliberative spaces in legislative bodies remain robust and inclusive, fostering meaningful debates and exchanges of ideas. By doing so, India can reaffirm its commitment to democratic values and transparent governance.

 

Source:

The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/deprivileging-bribe-on-overruling-the-majority-verdict-in-pv-narasimha-rao-vs-state-cbispe-1998/article67917031.ece

Indian Express:

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/express-view-on-overturning-of-jmm-verdict-protecting-debate-9197851/

Mains Practice Question:

Examine the recent Supreme Court rulings on parliamentary privileges and the JMM bribery case in India, and discuss their implications for upholding integrity and accountability in legislative processes.