Seven-Judge Bench declares Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution do not protect Members of Parliament or State Legislatures from criminal prosecution for bribery, overruling the controversial majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao (1998).
In a landmark judgment delivered on March 4, 2024, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India decisively held that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) do not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery under the parliamentary privileges enshrined in Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution. The judgment overruled the majority view of the five-judge bench in the seminal case PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998), which had granted immunity to legislators accused of accepting bribes in connection with their votes or speeches in Parliament.
The appeal arose from a criminal prosecution against Sita Soren, a Jharkhand MLA, who was accused of accepting a bribe to vote in favor of an independent candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. The High Court of Jharkhand had refused to quash the charges, reasoning that since Ms. Soren did not vote in favor of the alleged bribe giver, she was not entitled to immunity under Article 194(2). The matter then ascended to the Supreme Court, where a larger bench was constituted to reconsider the constitutional interpretation laid down in PV Narasimha Rao.
The seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, conducted a thorough examination of the text, context, and historical evolution of parliamentary privileges in India, as well as comparative jurisprudence from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and Australia. The Court emphasized that unlike the UK House of Commons, Indian legislatures do not possess “ancient and undoubted” privileges; rather, parliamentary privileges are statutory and constitutional constructs subject to the Constitution's supremacy and judicial review.
The Court reaffirmed the functional rationale of parliamentary privilege: to protect legislators’ freedom of speech and vote essential for the collective and effective functioning of the legislature. However, it clarified that such privileges are not a shield against criminal liability for acts that undermine the integrity of the legislative process, such as bribery.
Significantly, the Court held that the phrase “in respect of anything said or any vote given” in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) must be interpreted narrowly to mean “arising out of” or “bearing a clear relation to” the speech or vote. Acceptance of a bribe is an independent criminal act that is complete upon receipt or agreement to receive the illegal gratification, irrespective of whether the legislator ultimately votes or speaks as promised. Consequently, immunity does not extend to bribery, which is fundamentally distinct from the protected legislative acts.
The Court also distinguished the parallel and distinct jurisdiction of the legislature to punish breaches of privilege and the jurisdiction of criminal courts to prosecute offences. While the legislature may expel or discipline members for corruption, such actions do not preclude prosecution in courts. This separation of powers ensures accountability and adherence to the rule of law.
Further, the Court held that voting by MLAs in Rajya Sabha elections falls within the ambit of Article 194(2) and is thus protected as a legislative function. The free and fearless exercise of franchise in such elections is essential to the dignity and effective functioning of the legislative assembly.
The judgment reaffirmed the constitutional vision of probity in public life, emphasizing that corruption erodes democratic values and public trust. It underscored that the doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule and that the Court must not perpetuate erroneous interpretations of the Constitution, especially those that harm public interest and parliamentary democracy.
This ruling marks a pivotal step in ensuring that legislators remain accountable to the law and that parliamentary privileges are not misused to shield criminal conduct. It aligns India’s constitutional law with global standards that do not extend privilege-based immunity to bribery and corruption by legislators.
The Supreme Court’s decision delivers a strong message reinforcing the principle that no one, including elected representatives, is above the law, thereby strengthening the foundations of India’s parliamentary democracy.
Statutory provisions
Constitution of India Articles 105, 194; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7
Sita Soren v. Union of India (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2512932
