Central Idea

Important Question: The Supreme Court of India is trying to answer a significant question: Can lawmakers be prosecuted in criminal courts for taking or offering bribes despite the legal protection they enjoy under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution?
Background: This question arises from a need to re-evaluate a past Supreme Court ruling in the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao vs. State case, which said that lawmakers can’t be prosecuted for bribery related to their speeches or votes in Parliament.

Understanding Lawmaker Immunity

Constitutional Safeguard: Constitution provides special protection for lawmakers through Articles 105(2) and 194(2). These articles deal with the powers and privileges of Parliament and state legislatures, and they say that lawmakers can’t be taken to court for anything they say or vote on in these bodies.
What It Means: This means lawmakers are safe from legal action for their words and actions inside the Parliament or state legislatures. For example, they can’t be sued for defamation for something they say during a debate.

How It Started: This matter began when, a member of Jharkhand politician, was accused of taking a bribe in exchange for her vote in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections.
Legal Journey: Soren asked for her case to be dropped, saying she was protected by Article 194(2). But the Jharkhand High Court disagreed in 2014. So, she approached the Supreme Court.
Referral to a Bigger Panel: During the case, it was clear that the issue was very important. In 2019, a Supreme Court Bench suggested that it should be heard by more judges (a larger Bench) because it relates to the 1998 Narasimha Rao decision.
What the Supreme Court Just Did: On September 20, 2023, a five-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, decided to send this issue to a seven-judge Bench for a fresh look. They said it’s vital to reconsider the PV Narasimha Rao ruling because it impacts our country’s politics.

Protecting Lawmakers: Articles 105(2) and 194(2) aim to make sure lawmakers can speak and vote freely in Parliament and state legislatures without worrying about legal trouble.
Not a Get-Out-Of-Jail Card: But remember, these rules don’t mean lawmakers are above the regular laws of our country. They just make sure lawmakers can do their job without fear.

The Big Case: The PV Narasimha Rao case is all about the 1993 JMM bribery scandal. The politician, who is related to the petitioner in this case, and some MPs were accused of taking money to vote against a no-confidence motion.
Different Opinions: Some judges thought immunity shouldn’t cover bribery cases. But most judges thought lawmakers should be protected to make sure they can talk and vote freely.
What Happened: The 1998 ruling in the Narasimha Rao case made it hard to prosecute lawmakers for bribery linked to their work in Parliament.

Big Legal Question: The Supreme Court’s decision to send this issue to a seven-judge Bench shows how important it is. They want to decide if lawmakers can be prosecuted for bribery without affecting their ability to do their job.
Keeping Democracy Running: Articles 105(2) and 194(2) are here to make sure our Parliament and state legislatures work smoothly. They let lawmakers speak without fear, but they don’t mean lawmakers can break the law.
Balancing Act: What the bigger Bench decides will shape how lawmakers can be prosecuted for bribery, a matter that’s incredibly important for India’s democracy.