Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Articles 194(2) (for MLAs) and 105(2) (MPs)
Mains level: Vote for cash issue
In the news
- The Supreme Court is set to decide if legislators (MPs and MLAs) enjoy immunity from bribery charges in connection with votes made in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
Legislators Immunity: Background and Context
- Constitutional Provisions: Articles 194(2) (for MLAs) and 105(2) (MPs) of the Constitution grant legislators immunity from legal proceedings concerning their speeches and votes in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
- P.V. Narasimha Case: In 1998, the Supreme Court upheld this immunity in the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v State (CBI/SPE), ruling that legislators are shielded from criminal prosecution for bribery linked to their parliamentary actions.
Reasons for Reconsideration
- Sita Soren’s Case: The appeal by JMM MLA Sita Soren, accused of accepting bribes during Rajya Sabha elections, prompted a reevaluation of the Narasimha verdict.
- Interpretation Issues: Concerns were raised about the broad interpretation of immunity and its implications for combating bribery in legislative bodies.
Arguments Supporting Immunity
- Absolute Protection: Advocates contend that legislators enjoy complete immunity from legal action under constitutional provisions. They argue that the Speaker holds authority to address moral infractions through expulsion.
- Interpretation of Articles: The dissenting opinion in Narasimha sought to narrow the scope of immunity, but proponents stress adherence to the literal interpretation of constitutional language.
Arguments against
- Completion of Offence: Critics argue that the offence of bribery is consummated upon acceptance of the bribe, irrespective of subsequent actions. They advocate holding legislators accountable from the moment the bribe is accepted.
- Legitimate Legislative Actions: Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate actions, advocates assert that actions stemming from criminal conduct, such as vote-buying, should not be shielded by immunity.
Legal Interpretation and Statutory Compliance
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Critics highlight inconsistencies between the Narasimha ruling and the provisions of the PCA, emphasizing the need for alignment with anti-corruption legislation.
- Intent and Performance: Solicitor General Mehta underscored the disconnect between the Narasimha verdict and the intent of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly regarding the timing of criminal liability.
P.V. Narasimha Case (1998) AnalogyJudgement protects bribe-takers after there is “performance” (a speech or vote is given based on the bribe), even though Section 7 of the PCA specifically punishes public servants who accept bribes “to” or “as a reward for” performing their public duty improperly or dishonestly. |
Way Forward
- Balancing Integrity and Immunity: The court’s ruling will determine the delicate balance between upholding legislative immunity and ensuring accountability for criminal acts.
- Interpretative Scrutiny: A nuanced interpretation of constitutional provisions is essential to address the evolving complexities of legislative conduct and accountability.
Conclusion
- The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on legislators’ immunity from bribery charges holds significant ramifications for India’s legal landscape.
- Balancing constitutional provisions, legislative intent, and anti-corruption imperatives, the court’s ruling will shape the accountability framework for lawmakers and the integrity of the legislative process.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
