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

What are Parliamentary Privileges?

Immunity against Bribe: Constitutional Provisions Examined

• 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.

Court’s Review and Interpretation

• 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.

Key Findings and Interpretations

• 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.

Conclusion

• 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.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Introduction

• The Supreme Court delivered a groundbreaking unanimous judgment, deeming the electoral bonds scheme “unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary.”
• Led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down the scheme, citing infringement on voters’ right to information and disproportionate restrictions.

Key Reasons for Striking Down Electoral Bonds Scheme

[A] Violation of Right to Information (RTI)

• Petitioners argued that the scheme violates Right to Information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, emphasizing voters’ right to information regarding political party funding.
• Despite the government’s stance that citizens lack a “right to know” about political contributions, the court upheld voters’ right to such information, citing the inherent connection between money and politics.
• The court highlighted the “deep association” between money and politics, stressing the need for transparency to prevent quid pro quo arrangements.

[B] Disproportionate Restrictions:

• The scheme’s anonymity for donors, aimed at curbing black money, was deemed disproportionate to its goal.
• Advocates highlighted potential loopholes allowing for cash donations, undermining its efficacy in combating black money.
• The court emphasized the availability of alternative, less restrictive measures to achieve the scheme’s objectives, such as Section 29C of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

[C] Privacy vs. Public Interest:

• While the government argued for donor anonymity to protect privacy rights, advocates stressed the importance of public scrutiny in political funding.
• The court clarified that donor privacy extends only to genuine forms of public support, rejecting absolute anonymity facilitated by the scheme.

[D] Unlimited Corporate Contributions:

• Advocates underscored the adverse impact of unlimited corporate contributions on free and fair elections.
• The court reinstated the cap on political contributions from companies, citing the need to prevent undue corporate influence in politics.
• It noted concerns that unlimited contributions could incentivize quid pro quo arrangements, especially by loss-making companies.

Impact on Key Legal Amendments

• Representation of the People Act, 1951: The court struck down amendments exempting political parties from disclosing donations above Rs. 20,000, reinforcing the balance between voters’ right to information and donor privacy. (Section 29C)
• Companies Act, 2013: Amendments allowing unlimited corporate contributions were overturned, restoring the cap on political donations by companies and preserving electoral integrity. (Section 182)
• Income-tax Act, 1961: Exemptions for political parties to maintain records of donations received via electoral bonds were annulled, safeguarding voters’ right to information. (Section 13A)

Application of Proportionality Test

[A] Definition:

• The proportionality test assesses the balance between competing fundamental rights or interests and the measures taken by the state to achieve its objectives.
• It involves four criteria: legality, necessity, proportionality in the strict sense, and balancing of interests.

[B] Government’s Arguments:

• The government defended the scheme, citing legitimate aims such as tackling black money and protecting donor anonymity.
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the right to information does not extend to information not in the state’s possession.

[C] Court’s Analysis:

• Applying the proportionality test, the court scrutinized the balance between competing fundamental rights, emphasizing the necessity of the “least restrictive” methods.
• It underscored the importance of less intrusive alternatives, such as the electoral trusts scheme, in achieving the scheme’s objectives.

Why is this a Landmark case?

• Burden of Proof: The court held that the state must demonstrate that its measures are the “least restrictive” and that no other “equally effective” methods exist to achieve its objectives.
• Balancing Competing Rights: Unlike previous approaches prioritizing public interest over individual rights, the court’s focus is on balancing competing fundamental rights.
• Structured Proportionality Test: The verdict applies a structured proportionality test, requiring the state to demonstrate that its actions restricting fundamental rights are proportional to its objectives.
• Application of Legal Precedents: While the right-to-privacy ruling laid down the law, subsequent cases like Aadhaar (2018) and Demonetization (2023) applied the structured proportionality test. The electoral bonds verdict represents a significant departure in this regard.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s verdict reaffirms its commitment to upholding constitutional principles and safeguarding democratic processes.
• By striking down the electoral bonds scheme and reinstating key legal provisions, the court emphasizes the primacy of transparency and accountability in electoral financing.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now