How Court Stripped MPs/MLAs Of Immunity In Bribery Cases. What It Means

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court today ruled that an MP or MLA cannot claim immunity from prosecution if he/she is accused of taking a bribe for a vote or a speech in the House.

The judgment by the seven-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud explained in the judgment why the legal shield provided to lawmakers will not protect them in cases of bribery.

Legal Immunity for Lawmakers

Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution protect MPs and MLAs from prosecution to enable them to work without the fear of legal action against them. These provisions provide them freedom of speech and protect them from being prosecuted for their remarks in the House or any vote in Parliament or a House committee he/she may be part of.

For example, an MP or an MLA cannot face a defamation case for any remark made on the floor of the House. If a lawmaker makes an objectionable remark, the Speaker - and not courts - will take action.

The 1998 Judgment

Today's verdict set aside the 1998 judgment of the Supreme Court in the PV Narasimha Rao case. In July 1993, a no-confidence motion was moved against the minority government led by the former Prime Minister. His government had survived with a slim margin - 265 votes in favour and 251 against. A year later, allegations surfaced that legislators of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha had taken bribes to vote in support of the government. In the 1998 ruling, the Supreme Court held with a 3:2 majority that MPs and MLAs were immune from prosecution in bribery cases for their vote provided they kept their side of the bargain.

What Court Said Today

The court held that taking a bribe is an independent crime and it has no link with what a lawmaker says or does inside the Parliament or legislative assembly. Hence, the immunity from prosecution enjoyed by lawmakers will not shield them. The court said that protection granted under Articles 105 and 194 cannot protect lawmakers in bribery cases because they have no link with their duties as members of the House.

The court warned that such protection would create a section that can enjoy unregulated exemption from law.

The court said corruption and bribery by legislators can potentially destroy the functioning of the Indian Parliamentary democracy.

Article 105, it said, is aimed at maintaining a conducive environment for discussions. When a member takes a bribe for a speech, this environment is disrupted, it said.

Comments On the 1998 Verdict

Delivering the unanimous verdict, the Chief Justice of India said, "We disagree with the judgment in PV Narasimha (case). The judgment in that case which granted immunity to legislators for taking bribes to cast votes has wide ramifications and is overruled."

The court said that the 1998 judgment results in a "paradoxical situation" where a legislator who accepts a bribe and votes accordingly is protected, and a legislator who, despite taking a bribe, votes independently is prosecuted.

What This Verdict Means

Over the past several decades, cash-for-votes trading has been a massive challenge in preserving the sanctity of electoral mandates. Prior to today's judgment, no MP or MLA could be prosecuted if they took a bribe and cast their vote accordingly. But now they have lost this immunity. The court held that the crime was complete the moment a lawmaker accepted the bribe, and the immunity he/she enjoys inside the House won't provide protection in this case.