• UGI USER
  • Mar 05, 2024
  • 24 Likes
  • 0 Comments

WHEN LAWMAKERS TAKES BRIBES

Relevance: GS 2 – Parliament and State legislatures—structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges and issues arising out of these.

Why in the News?

  • A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by CJI Chandrachud, decided that lawmakers accused of bribery related to their speeches and votes in the House are not exempt from criminal prosecution.
  • The Court ruled that assertions of parliamentary privilege by lawmakers are open to judicial scrutiny, emphasizing that Parliament alone cannot have ultimate authority on the matter.
  • The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether its jurisdiction was superseded by Parliament’s power to punish its members for contempt, including imposing suspensions or jail sentences.

What the Law States

  • Article 105(2) of the Constitution grants immunity to Members of Parliament, stating that they cannot be held liable in any court for their speech or votes in Parliament or its committees.
    • Similar protection is provided to members of state Assemblies under Article 194(2).
  • The seven-judge Bench was tasked with interpreting this provision.
    • Specifically, the Court had to assess the interpretation provided in the 1998 JMM Bribery ruling and determine its correctness.

Court’s Interpretation of Parliamentary Privileges

  • The ruling emphasized that Parliament or state legislatures cannot unilaterally determine the extent of their privileges.
  • It reiterated that legislative bodies are only entitled to claim privileges that are indispensable for their effective functioning.
  • Focus on Immunity from Prosecution:
    • The judgment specifically addresses the issue of immunity from prosecution for Members of Parliament (MPs) charged with bribery.
    • It refers to Article 105(2) of the Constitution, which shields MPs from legal proceedings for their parliamentary speech and votes.
  • It asserts that the judiciary can intervene to ensure that parliamentary privileges are not misused or abused.

Court’s Observations

  • The seven-judge bench’s ruling permits lawmakers to face corruption charges even for actions carried out within the House, aligning with a constitutional interpretation emphasizing integrity in public service.
    • This interpretation, although not rooted in a specific provision of the Constitution, underscores the importance of upholding ethical standards in governance.
  • The ruling emphasizes that corruption among lawmakers undermines the foundational principles of the Constitution, hindering the realization of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy.
  • In contrast, a 3-2 majority ruling in 1998 had granted lawmakers near-complete immunity from corruption charges, but subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court have gradually eroded this privilege.

Clarifications by the Court

  • The Supreme Court clarified that while Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are protected for their speech and protests on the assembly floor,
    • Criminal actions such as damaging microphones or furniture do not fall under parliamentary immunity.
  • The Court reasoned that parliamentary privileges, being a “collective right” of the House, are qualified when exercised by individual members.
    • The qualification is based on the “necessity” of privileges, limited to those indispensable for members to fulfill their functions.

Evolution of Parliamentary Privileges

  • The Supreme Court noted that
    • The UK’s House of Commons possesses inherent and ancient rights established through historical struggles with the monarchy
    • India’s parliamentary privileges derive from statute, even during colonial times. Post-independence, these privileges transitioned into constitutional privileges.
  • Two Components of Parliamentary Privilege:
    • Parliamentary privilege in India comprises collective rights exercised by the House as a whole, including the authority to punish for contempt and manage its own affairs.
    • Additionally, individual rights of lawmakers, such as the freedom of speech, are also considered under parliamentary privilege.
    • However, these individual rights must pass a necessity test.
  • The “Necessity Test”:
    • The ruling introduced the “necessity test,” which dictates that for a member to exercise a privilege, it must be essential for them to fulfill their duties as lawmakers.
    • Accepting bribes cannot meet this necessity test, as opposed to fundamental privileges like freedom of speech.
  • Constitutional Vision of Probity:
    • The Court highlighted that corruption and bribery among legislators undermine the foundational principles of Indian parliamentary democracy.
    • Such misconduct erodes the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and leads to a political system that deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy.

Interpretation of Immunity in Cases of Bribery

The Court deliberated on whether a lawmaker retains immunity if they accept a bribe but subsequently vote according to their conscience or party line, rather than as requested by the bribe-giver.

  • Essentially, the question was whether accepting money without a quid pro quo still constitutes graft.
  • Analysis of Prevention of Corruption Act:
    • The Court examined Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which addresses the offense of a public servant being bribed.
    • It highlighted that the mere act of “obtaining,” “accepting,” or “attempting” to obtain an undue advantage with the intention to act or refrain from acting in a certain way is sufficient to constitute the offense.
    • The actual performance of the act for which the bribe is given is not necessary.
  • Implications for Equality Under Article 14:
    • The Court emphasized that creating an exceptional class of public servants afforded extraordinary protection would violate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
    • Such a classification would be deemed manifestly arbitrary, as it would create unjust distinctions among public servants based on their entitlement to immunity.

Concurrent Jurisdiction of Court and Parliament:

  • The Court ruled that both the judiciary and Parliament can exercise jurisdiction over the actions of lawmakers simultaneously.
  • It clarified that the purpose of punishment by the House for contempt, such as receiving a bribe, differs from the objectives of a criminal trial.
  • Distinct Purposes of Punishment:
    • The Court emphasized that the issue of bribery does not imply exclusive jurisdiction by the House over its members accused of accepting bribes.
    • Punishment by the House for contempt related to bribery serves a distinct purpose separate from that of criminal prosecution.

1998 JUDGEMENT  IN P V NARASIMHA RAO V STATE (CBI/SPE)

In this, a five-judge bench, with a 3-2 majority, ruled that legislators were immune from prosecution for accepting such bribes.

Background to the 1998 case

  • In the backdrop of economic and political turmoil in 1993, CPI(M)’s Ajoy Mukhopadhyay introduced a no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha against Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao on July 26, 1993.
  • At that time, Rao’s Congress party had 251 MPs, 13 short of a majority in the 528-member Lok Sabha.
    • Despite the Congress party’s numerical disadvantage, the no-confidence motion was defeated with 265 votes in favor and 251 against, allowing Rao and the Congress to retain power.
  • Allegations of Bribery:
    • Following the no-confidence vote, reports surfaced suggesting that Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MPs had accepted substantial bribes from Rao to vote against the motion.
    • In 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) initiated an investigation into the matter and subsequently registered cases against six JMM MPs for allegedly accepting bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion in 1993.
    • Additionally, Janata Dal’s Ajit Singh was accused of accepting a bribe to abstain from voting during the motion.
  • Legal Proceedings: When the Delhi High Court refused to dismiss the charges, Narasimha Rao and the other accused individuals appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking relief from the bribery allegations and associated legal consequences.
  • SC 1998 Ruling:
    • It established a legal precedent that provided immunity to lawmakers for bribery charges linked to their speech and votes in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.

 1998 Majority Opinion: Legislators’ Immunity Under Articles 105(2), 194(2)

  • The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether legislators, by virtue of their office, enjoyed immunity from prosecution in the case at hand.
  • Justice Barucha, supported by Justice Rajendra Babu, authored the majority opinion, asserting that legislators who accepted bribes and cast their votes against the no-confidence motion were immune from criminal prosecution under Article 105(2).
  • Interpretation of Article 105(2):
    • Justice Barucha emphasised that MPs must be able to exercise their freedom of speech in Parliament without the fear of facing court proceedings.
    • He argued that MPs’ votes should be regarded as an extension of their freedom of speech, and thus, they should be shielded from civil or criminal proceedings connected to their parliamentary activities.
    • The phrase “in respect of” in the Article was interpreted broadly to encompass all civil or criminal proceedings related to anything said or voted for by MPs in Parliament.
  • Exceptions to Immunity:
    • However, the Court declined to extend the same protections to Ajit Singh since he neither made a speech nor cast a vote during the no-confidence motion.
    • Furthermore, the immunity was not extended to bribe-givers.
  • Concurring Opinion: Justice G N Ray concurred with this interpretation of Article 105(2), supporting the majority’s view on the immunity of legislators in connection with their parliamentary activities.

1998 Minority Opinion: Distinction Between Bribery and Parliamentary Activities

  • Justice S C Agarwal authored the dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Dr A S Anand, highlighting the separate nature of accepting a bribe from parliamentary speech or vote.
  • He argued that granting immunity to legislators for bribery charges would elevate them above the rule of law, which contradicts the purpose of Article 105(2).
  • Justice Agarwal emphasized that protecting MPs who exchange their independence for illegal gratification through bribery would essentially condone corrupt behavior.
  • Anomalous Situation and Interpretation of “In Respect Of”:
    • Justice Agarwal contended that it would create an anomalous situation.
    • Under the majority’s interpretation, MPs could only be prosecuted for bribery if they did not fulfill the purpose of the bribe in their speech or vote. However, they would be immune from prosecution if they did fulfill the purpose.
    • He proposed interpreting “in respect of” as “arising out of,” arguing that this would hold legislators accountable for any civil or criminal liability arising from their speech or vote.
  • Proposal for a Different Interpretation:
    • Justice Agarwal advocated for a broader interpretation where legislators are shielded from liability only for acts directly related to their parliamentary activities.
    • He suggested that the offence of bribery is complete upon the acceptance of the bribe, regardless of whether the purpose of the bribe is fulfilled through speech or vote in Parliament or a Legislative Assembly.
    • This interpretation would allow for the prosecution of legislators for bribery while maintaining their immunity for legitimate parliamentary activities.

Source:

Mains Question

Discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling that lawmakers facing bribery charges for parliamentary activities are not immune from criminal prosecution. (250 words)