Supreme Court Overturns Immunity for Bribery in Legislature: Sita Soren vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 161

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 4 March 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 161

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, A.S. Bopanna J, M.M. Sundresh J, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Sanjay Kumar J, Manoj Misra J.

Can a legislator who accepts a bribe to vote a certain way be shielded by parliamentary privilege? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, revisiting a long-standing legal precedent. This case, Sita Soren v. Union of India, challenges the extent to which legislators are immune from prosecution for bribery, a matter of significant public importance. The seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, has overruled a previous judgment, holding that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege.

Case Background

The case involves Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM). In 2012, she was accused of accepting a bribe to vote in favor of an independent candidate during Rajya Sabha elections. However, she ultimately voted for her own party’s candidate. The High Court of Jharkhand declined to quash the criminal proceedings against her, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 194(2) of the Constitution, which deals with the powers and privileges of state legislatures, and its relationship with bribery.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Jharkhand refused to quash the charges against Sita Soren, primarily relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE). The High Court reasoned that since Soren did not vote as agreed, she was not protected under Article 194(2). Subsequently, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench, recognizing the substantial public importance of the issue. A three-judge bench then referred it to a five-judge bench, which ultimately referred the case to a seven-judge bench, doubting the correctness of the PV Narasimha Rao decision.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions at play are Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) of the Constitution, which grant certain immunities to members of Parliament and state legislatures, respectively. Article 105(2) states:

“No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof…”

Article 194(2) contains similar provisions for members of state legislatures. These articles are intended to ensure that legislators can perform their duties without fear of legal repercussions for their speech or votes. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that these provisions do not grant immunity for actions that are not essential to the functioning of the legislature, such as bribery.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were diverse, with the appellant and the respondent presenting their cases. Below is a summary of the main arguments:

Appellant’s Arguments

• 
  The majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao is well-reasoned and should not be overturned.
• 
  The purpose of parliamentary privilege is to protect legislators from oppression by the executive.
• 
  The phrase “in respect of” in Article 194(2) should be given a broad meaning to include acts connected to voting.
• 
  Overruling the previous judgment may lead to abuse of power by political parties.
• 
  Voting in Rajya Sabha elections is a legislative process and thus falls under the protection of Article 194(2).

Respondent’s Arguments

• 
  The PV Narasimha Rao judgment does not apply to the present case because Rajya Sabha elections are not legislative proceedings.
• 
  The expression “in respect of” should be interpreted narrowly to mean “arising out of” and not merely “connected to”.
• 
  The offense of bribery is complete when the bribe is accepted, regardless of whether the promised action is performed.
• 
  The legal position in other countries does not support granting immunity for bribery to legislators.
• 
  The majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao leads to an anomalous situation where a legislator who takes a bribe but does not vote is not protected, while one who does vote is.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the decision in PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) requires reconsideration by a larger bench.
2. Whether Article 105(2) and the corresponding provisions of Article 194(2) of the Constitution grant immunity to a legislator from prosecution for bribery.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered a range of authorities to reach its conclusions. These authorities are categorized by the legal point they address:

On the Doctrine of Stare Decisis

• Keshav Mills Co. Ltd v. CIT, AIR 1965 SC 1636 – Discussed the importance of certainty and continuity in law but also the need for growth and development.
• Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 – Reaffirmed the principle that settled law should not be disturbed lightly.
• Shanker Raju v. Union of India, (2011) 2 SCC 132 – Reiterated the need for consistency in judicial decisions.
• Shah Faesal and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI), (2020) 4 SCC 1 – Highlighted the circumstances under which a previous decision may be reconsidered.
• Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, (1974) 2 SCC 402 – Emphasized the need to balance certainty with the growth of law.
• Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1955 SCC OnLine SC 2 – Delineated the powers of the Court to reconsider its own decisions, especially in constitutional matters.
• Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of W.B., (1973) 1 SCC 856 – Held that the doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule.
• Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, (1961) 2 SCR 828 – Recognized the power to review earlier decisions to remedy injustice.
• Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754 – Reaffirmed the power to reconsider decisions for public good.
• Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111 – Stated that prior decisions can be reviewed if inconsistent with the Constitution.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1 – Recognized the power to reconsider decisions in cases of public interest.

On Parliamentary Privilege and Bribery

• Tej Kiran Jain v. N Sanjeeva Reddy, (1970) 2 SCC 272 – Interpreted the word “anything” in Article 105(2) to be of the widest import, but limited by “in Parliament”.
• Alagaapuram R Mohanraj v. TN Legislative Assembly, (2016) 6 SCC 82 – Delineated the differences between freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and Articles 105 and 194.
• Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184 – Held that the court has the authority to examine if a privilege asserted by the House exists.
• State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608 – Held that the courts have the power to inquire if a privilege claimed by the legislature exists.
• Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha, (2010) 6 SCC 113 – Held that courts are empowered to scrutinize the exercise of privileges by the House.
• MSM Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395 – Held that privileges of Parliament under Article 105(3) prevail over fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a).
• Special Refence No. 1 of 1964, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 21 – Held that Article 21 prevails over Articles 105(3) and 194(3) in a conflict.
• State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, (2021) 17 SCC 318 – Held that privileges do not exclude the application of ordinary criminal law.
• Lokayukta, Justice Ripusudan Dayal v. State of M.P., (2014) 4 SCC 473 – Held that members of the House cannot claim exemption from criminal law under the garb of privileges.
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 – Held that freedom of speech in Parliament under Article 105(2) is not violated by laws against floor-crossing.

On Bribery and Corruption

• Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 3 SCC 46 – Reaffirmed that the offense of bribery is complete upon acceptance of illegal gratification.
• Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 – Listed the constituent elements of the offense of bribery under Section 7 of the PC Act.

On International Jurisprudence

• The King v. Sir John Elliot, (1629) 3 St. Tr. 294 – A historical case on parliamentary privilege in the UK.
• Ex Parte Wason, (1969) 4 QB 573 – A case where it was held that speeches made in either House could not give rise to civil or criminal proceedings.
• R v. Greenway, [1998] PL 357 – A UK case where it was held that a member of Parliament against whom there is a prima facie case of corruption should not be immune from prosecution.
• R v. Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Ex Parte Fayed, [1998] 1 WLR 669 – A UK case where it was held that parliamentary privilege would not prevent courts from investigating whether a member of Parliament has committed a criminal offence.
• Hamilton v. Al Fayed, [2001] 1 A.C. 395 – A UK case where it was held that courts are precluded from questioning a witness in parliamentary proceedings.
• Prebble v. Television New Zealand, (1994) 3 ALL ER 407 – A UK case on the use of parliamentary proceedings as evidence in court.
• Office of Government Commerce v. Information Commissioner, [2009] 3 WLR 627 – A UK case that held opinions of parliamentary committees would be irrelevant before a court.
• R v. Chaytor, [2010] 3 WLR 1707 – A UK case where it was held that the purpose of Article IX of the Bill of Rights is to protect freedom of speech and debate in the Houses of Parliament.
• Makudi v. Baron Triesman of Trottenham, [2014] QB 839 – A UK case that held that a statement made by a witness in public which repeated his testimony before a parliamentary committee would not attract immunity.
• United States v. Thomas F Johnson, 383 US 169 (1966) – A US case on the scope of the Speech and Debate Clause.
• United States v. Brewster, 408 US 501 (1972) – A US case that held that while the Speech or Debate Clause protects against inquiry into legislative acts, it does not protect bribery.
• Gavel v. United States, 408 US 606 (1972) – A US case that clarified that the Speech and Debate Clause does not extend to private publications.
• United States v. Helstoski, 442 US 477 (1979) – A US case that reaffirmed that the Speech and Debate Clause does not protect bribery.
• Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 439 US 1066 (1979) – A US case that held that the Speech and Debate Clause does not create an absolute privilege from liability for defamatory statements made outside the Chamber.
• R v. Bunting et al., [1885] 17 O.R. 524 – A Canadian case that held that bribery of legislators is a criminal offense and not protected by parliamentary privilege.
• Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, [2005] 1 SCR 667 – A Canadian case that adopted the test of ‘necessity’ in determining parliamentary privilege.
• Chagnon v. Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 687 – A Canadian case that reiterated the necessity test for parliamentary privilege.
• R v. Edward White, 13 SCR (NSW) 332 – An Australian case that held that an attempt to bribe a member of the legislature is a criminal offense.
• R v. Boston, (1923) 33 CLR 386 – An Australian case that held that the payment of money to a member of Parliament to influence their position is a criminal offense.
• Obeid v. Queen, [2017] NSWCCA 221 – An Australian case that held that courts and Parliament may have concurrent jurisdiction over criminal matters.

On Interpretation of the Constitution

• State (NCT of Delhi) v Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501 – Discussed how to interpret a constitutional provision and the meaning of specific words in the text.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 – Discussed the importance of the text of the Constitution over marginal notes.
• K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1642 – Reflected on the significance of the Rajya Sabha and bicameralism.

On the Scope of Article 194(2)

• Pashupati Nath Sukul v. Nem Chandra Jain and Ors., (1984) 2 SCC 404 – Held that an election to fill seats in the Rajya Sabha does not form a part of the legislative proceedings of the House.
• Madhukar Jetly v. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 111 – Reiterated that an election to the Rajya Sabha does not form part of the legislative proceedings of the House.
• Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1 – Held that elections to fill seats in the Rajya Sabha are not proceedings of the legislature but a mere exercise of franchise.

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a landmark decision that significantly alters the understanding of parliamentary privilege in India. The Court has held that the immunity granted to legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) does not extend to acts of bribery. The Court has clarified that the phrase “in respect of” in these articles must be interpreted narrowly to mean “arising out of” or “directly related to” legislative functions, and not merely “connected to” them.

The Court has also emphasized that the offense of bribery is complete upon the acceptance or agreement to accept a bribe, regardless of whether the legislator actually performs the promised act. This means that a legislator who takes a bribe to vote a certain way is not protected by parliamentary privilege, even if they do vote as agreed.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Verdict

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, overruled the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), holding that legislators are not immune from prosecution for bribery under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution.

The Court has clarified that parliamentary privilege is intended to ensure that legislators can perform their duties without fear of legal repercussions for their speech or votes, but it does not extend to actions that are not essential to the functioning of the legislature, such as bribery.

Flowchart of the Decision

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sita Soren v. Union of India is a significant step towards upholding probity in public life. By removing the cloak of immunity from legislators who engage in bribery, the Court has sent a strong message that corruption will not be tolerated. This decision has far-reaching implications for the functioning of legislative bodies and the accountability of elected representatives. It reinforces the principle that no one is above the law, and that even those who hold positions of power must be held accountable for their actions.