In the news

A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivered a significant judgment regarding parliamentary privilege and criminal prosecution.
The verdict overturned a 1998 ruling in PV Narasimha Rao Case that granted immunity to lawmakers accepting bribes if they subsequently voted or spoke in the House

Also read:

Legislators Immunity against Criminal Prosecution

	Details
Definition	Special rights, immunities, and exemptions enjoyed by Parliament, its committees, and members. Defined in Article 105 of the Indian Constitution.
Scope	Applies to Parliament, committees, and members.
Freedom of Speech	Guaranteed under Article 105(1). Subject to rules and procedures of Parliament (Article 118).
Limitations to Free Speech	Speech must comply with constitutional provisions. Cannot discuss judges’ conduct (Article 121), except for motions for their removal.
Freedom from Arrest	Immunity from arrest in civil cases 40 days before and after sessions. House permission needed for arrest within Parliament limits.
Notification of Arrest	Chairman/Speaker must be informed of any member’s arrest.
Right to Prohibit Publication	No liability for publishing reports, discussions under member’s authority (Article 105(2)).
Right to Exclude Strangers	Members have power to exclude non-members from proceedings.

Article 105(2): This article grants immunity to members of Parliament from court proceedings concerning their actions (speech or votes) in Parliament.
Article 194(2): Similarly, this article extends immunity to members of state assemblies.

PV Narasimha Rao Case: In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled with a 3:2 majority that MPs and MLAs were immune from prosecution in bribery cases as long as they fulfilled their end of the bargain.
Judicial Scrutiny of Privilege: The Court revisited the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2), challenging the traditional understanding of absolute immunity for lawmakers.
Historical Context: It noted that India’s parliamentary privileges stem from statutory and constitutional sources, unlike the UK’s House of Commons, which has ancient and undoubted rights.

Necessity Test Applied: The Court applied a “necessity test” to determine the legitimacy of claims to parliamentary privilege, emphasizing that accepting bribes cannot be deemed necessary for lawmakers to discharge their duties.
Emphasis on Probity: The ruling underscored the importance of probity in public life, highlighting the corrosive impact of corruption on democratic ideals.
Interpretation of Offense: It clarified that the act of accepting a bribe constitutes an offense, regardless of subsequent actions by the lawmaker in the House.

The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a significant departure from past precedent, affirming the principle that no individual, including legislators, is above the law.
By asserting the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing claims of parliamentary privilege, the Court reaffirmed the primacy of constitutional values and accountability in governance.
This landmark judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and combating corruption, thereby bolstering India’s democratic foundations.