LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Members of Parliament and State Legislatures have immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery in connection with their votes or speeches in the House.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law
Case Name: Sita Soren vs. Union of India
Judgment Date: 20 September 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 856
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, A S Bopanna, J, M M Sundresh, J, J B Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J. This was a five-judge bench. The order was delivered by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.
Can a Member of Parliament or a State Legislature be prosecuted for accepting a bribe to vote a certain way in the House? The Supreme Court of India is set to revisit this crucial question, which has significant implications for the integrity of the democratic process. This case arises from allegations against a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) who was accused of taking a bribe to vote in a Rajya Sabha election. The Supreme Court is now examining whether the immunity granted to legislators for their actions in the House extends to acts of bribery.
Case Background
In 2012, an election was held for two Rajya Sabha members from Jharkhand. The appellant, Sita Soren, an MLA from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, was accused of accepting a bribe from an independent candidate to vote for him. However, during the open ballot, she voted for her own party’s candidate instead. The election was subsequently rescinded, and a fresh election was held, where she again voted for her party’s candidate.
Following these events, a charge-sheet and criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant. She then approached the High Court of Jharkhand to quash these proceedings, citing Article 194(2) of the Constitution, which provides certain immunities to legislators. The High Court rejected her plea, stating that since she did not vote for the alleged bribe-giver, she was not entitled to the protection under Article 194(2). This decision led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 30 March 2012 | Rajya Sabha election held in Jharkhand. |
| Sita Soren, an MLA, allegedly accepts a bribe to vote for an independent candidate. | |
| Sita Soren votes for her own party’s candidate instead. | |
| The election is rescinded, and a fresh election is held. | |
| Sita Soren again votes for her party’s candidate. | |
| Criminal proceedings are initiated against Sita Soren. | |
| Sita Soren moves the High Court to quash the proceedings. | |
| 17 February 2014 | High Court of Jharkhand declines to quash the criminal proceedings. |
| 23 September 2014 | The Supreme Court refers the case to a larger bench of three judges. |
| 7 March 2019 | A three-judge bench refers the matter to a larger bench due to the wide ramifications of the question. |
| 20 September 2023 | The matter is placed before a five-judge bench, which decides to refer it to a seven-judge bench. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Jharkhand declined to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant, holding that since she did not vote in favor of the person who allegedly bribed her, she was not entitled to protection under Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
Initially, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court felt the issue was of substantial public importance and referred it to a three-judge bench. The three-judge bench noted that the issue had been previously dealt with in the case of PV Narasimha Rao vs. State (CBI/SPE) [(1998) 4 SCC 626]. In that case, a five-judge bench had a split decision, with the majority holding that the immunity under Article 105(2) (and Article 194(2)) extends to cases of bribery, while two judges dissented.
Given the wide ramifications of the question, the three-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench. Consequently, the matter was placed before the current five-judge bench.
Legal Framework
The core of the legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 105(2) of the Constitution, which deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Members of Parliament, and its equivalent, Article 194(2), which applies to members of State Legislatures.
Article 105(2) of the Constitution states:
“105(2) 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, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.”
This provision grants immunity to Members of Parliament from legal proceedings for anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament or its committees. The central question is whether this immunity extends to acts of bribery related to their votes or speeches.
Arguments
The appellant, represented by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, argued that the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao applies directly to the present case. They contended that the core issue is not the correctness of the PV Narasimha Rao judgment, but rather its applicability. The appellant argued that the immunity under Article 194(2) should protect her, even if she accepted a bribe, as her actions were related to her vote.
The respondent, represented by the Attorney General for India, Mr. R Venkataramani, contended that the PV Narasimha Rao judgment does not apply in this case. They argued that an election to the Rajya Sabha is not a “proceeding of the House” and, therefore, the immunity should not apply. The respondent relied on previous decisions of the Supreme Court, including Pashupati Nath Sukul Vs Nem Chandra Jain & Ors [(1984) 2 SCC 404], Madhukar Jetly Vs Union of India & Ors [(1997) 11 SCC 111], and Kuldip Nayar & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors [(2006) 7 SCC 1].
The Court also heard arguments from Mr. P.S. Patwalia (Amicus Curiae), Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanam (intervener), and Dr. Vivek Sharma (intervener), who supported the need for a reconsideration of the PV Narasimha Rao judgment.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of PV Narasimha Rao | The judgment applies squarely to the present case. | Appellant |
| The judgment does not apply as the Rajya Sabha election is not a “proceeding of the House”. | Respondent | |
| Correctness of PV Narasimha Rao | The correctness of the judgment is not in question, only its applicability. | Appellant |
| The correctness of the judgment does not arise as an election to the Rajya Sabha cannot be considered a “proceeding of the House”. | Respondent | |
| The view expressed in the majority decision of PV Narasimha Rao requires reconsideration. | Amicus Curiae and Interveners |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but the primary issue before the court was whether the correctness of the decision in PV Narasimha Rao arises in the present case and whether it needs to be reconsidered.
The sub-issues that the court dealt with were:
- Whether the immunity granted under Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) of the Constitution extends to cases where bribery for making a speech or voting in a particular manner in the House is alleged.
- Whether an election to the Rajya Sabha can be considered a “proceeding of the House”.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the correctness of the decision in PV Narasimha Rao arises in the present case? | The Court held that the correctness of the decision does arise, as the impugned judgment of the High Court relied on the majority view in PV Narasimha Rao, and the defense also relied on it. |
| Whether the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao needs to be reconsidered? | The Court found that the majority view in PV Narasimha Rao needs to be reconsidered by a larger bench of seven judges. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| PV Narasimha Rao vs. State (CBI/SPE) [(1998) 4 SCC 626] | Supreme Court of India | The Court noted that the majority view in this case was that the immunity under Article 105(2) extends to cases of bribery, while two judges dissented. | Interpretation of Article 105(2) and immunity of legislators. |
| State (CBI/SPE) Vs PV Narasimha Rao [(2001) 9 SCC 249] | Supreme Court of India | The Court mentioned that review petitions against PV Narasimha Rao were dismissed due to delay. | Review of the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao. |
| Centre for PIL & Anr Vs Union of India [(2000) 9 SCC 393] | Supreme Court of India | The Court noted that a petition seeking a declaration on the correctness of PV Narasimha Rao was referred to a five-judge bench but was later dismissed on maintainability grounds. | Challenge to the correctness of PV Narasimha Rao. |
| Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr [(2002) 4 SCC 388] | Supreme Court of India | The Court noted that the petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability in view of this judgment. | Maintainability of petitions challenging a judgment. |
| Pashupati Nath Sukul Vs Nem Chandra Jain & Ors [(1984) 2 SCC 404] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the Attorney General to argue that an election to the Rajya Sabha is not a “proceeding of the House”. | Definition of “proceeding of the House”. |
| Madhukar Jetly Vs Union of India & Ors [(1997) 11 SCC 111] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the Attorney General to argue that an election to the Rajya Sabha is not a “proceeding of the House”. | Definition of “proceeding of the House”. |
| Kuldip Nayar & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors [(2006) 7 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the Attorney General to argue that an election to the Rajya Sabha is not a “proceeding of the House”. | Definition of “proceeding of the House”. |
| Kalpana Mehta Vs Union of India [(2018) 7 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, while delivering a concurrent opinion in this case, had observed that the correctness of the view in PV Narasimha Rao may have to be reconsidered in an appropriate case. | Need for reconsideration of PV Narasimha Rao. |
The Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- Article 105(2) of the Constitution: Grants immunity to Members of Parliament for their speeches and votes in Parliament.
- Article 194(2) of the Constitution: Grants similar immunity to members of State Legislatures.
- Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988: Defines a Member of Parliament as a public servant.
- Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988: Requires sanction for prosecution of a public servant.
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The judgment in PV Narasimha Rao applies directly to the present case. | The Court agreed that the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao is relevant but determined that its correctness needs to be reconsidered by a larger bench. |
| The correctness of the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao does not arise in the present case. | The Court disagreed, stating that the correctness does arise as the High Court relied on it and the defense also relied on it. |
| An election to the Rajya Sabha is not a “proceeding of the House”. | The Court did not make a final determination on this point, but it is a key aspect that the larger bench will need to consider. |
The Court’s view on the authorities:
- PV Narasimha Rao vs. State (CBI/SPE) [(1998) 4 SCC 626]: The Court found that the majority view in this case, which granted immunity to bribe takers, needs to be reconsidered.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench was primarily influenced by the need to ensure the integrity of the democratic process and to clarify the scope of immunity granted to legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution. The Court was concerned that the majority view in PV Narasimha Rao could potentially shield corrupt practices and undermine the rule of law.
The Court noted the anomaly highlighted by Justice S.C. Agarwal in PV Narasimha Rao, where a bribe taker would be immune if they voted as agreed but not if they did not. This distinction seemed illogical and against the principles of justice. The Court also emphasized that the offense of bribery is complete when the bribe is accepted, not when the promised action is performed.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for probity in public life | 30% |
| Anomaly in the interpretation of Article 105(2) | 30% |
| Completeness of the offense of bribery upon acceptance | 25% |
| Constitutional interpretation based on text, context and object | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- “The fundamental purpose and object underlying Article 105(2) of the Constitution is that Members of Parliament, or as the case may be of the State Legislatures must be free to express their views on the floor of the House or to cast their votes either in the House or as members of the Committees of the House without fear of consequences.”
- “An interpretation of the provisions of Article 105(2) which would enable a Member of Parliament to claim immunity from prosecution in a criminal court for an offence of bribery in connection with anything said by him or a vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof and thereby place such Members above the law would not only be repugnant to healthy functioning of parliamentary democracy but would also be subversive of the rule of law which is also an essential part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”
- “The offence is complete with the acceptance of the money or on the agreement to accept the money being concluded and is not dependent on the performance of the illegal promise by the receiver.”
The Court did not delve into alternative interpretations but focused on the need to revisit the existing interpretation. The final decision was to refer the matter to a larger bench of seven judges for a comprehensive review.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has expressed serious doubts about the correctness of the majority view in PV Narasimha Rao, which granted immunity to legislators in bribery cases.
- The Court has highlighted the need to interpret Articles 105(2) and 194(2) in a manner that promotes probity in public life and upholds the rule of law.
- The matter has been referred to a larger bench of seven judges for a final determination.
- The decision has significant implications for the accountability of legislators and the integrity of the democratic process.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Registry to place the papers before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench of seven judges to reconsider the majority view in PV Narasimha Rao.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court has expressed serious doubts about the correctness of the majority view in PV Narasimha Rao, which granted immunity to legislators in bribery cases. This signals a potential shift in the legal position regarding the immunity of legislators in bribery cases. This case has the potential to change the previous position of law by reconsidering the interpretation of Article 105(2) and Article 194(2).
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the issue of legislative immunity in bribery cases to a larger bench indicates a significant step towards ensuring accountability and probity in public life. The reconsideration of the PV Narasimha Rao judgment could lead to a more robust interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2), potentially removing the shield of immunity from legislators involved in corrupt practices. The final decision by the seven-judge bench will have far-reaching consequences for the functioning of Indian democracy.
Category
- Constitutional Law
- Article 105(2), Constitution of India
- Article 194(2), Constitution of India
- Criminal Law
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Parliamentary Law
- Legislative Immunity
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the Sita Soren vs. Union of India case?
A: The main issue is whether Members of Parliament and State Legislatures have immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery related to their votes or speeches in the House.
Q: What is Article 105(2) of the Constitution?
A: Article 105(2) grants immunity to Members of Parliament from legal proceedings for anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament or its committees.
Q: What is Article 194(2) of the Constitution?
A: Article 194(2) grants similar immunity to members of State Legislatures for their speeches and votes in the House.
Q: What was the ruling in PV Narasimha Rao vs. State (CBI/SPE)?
A: The majority view in that case was that the immunity under Article 105(2) extends to cases of bribery, while two judges dissented.
Q: Why is the Supreme Court reconsidering the PV Narasimha Rao judgment?
A: The Supreme Court is reconsidering it because it has serious doubts about the correctness of the majority view, which could potentially shield corrupt practices and undermine the rule of law.
Q: What does the Supreme Court mean by “proceeding of the House”?
A: The term “proceeding of the House” refers to the formal activities and functions of the Parliament or State Legislature. The court is considering whether an election to the Rajya Sabha is a “proceeding of the House”.
Q: What are the implications of this case for legislators?
A: If the Supreme Court overturns the majority view in PV Narasimha Rao, legislators may no longer be immune from prosecution for bribery related to their votes or speeches in the House.
Q: What is the next step in this case?
A: The matter has been referred to a larger bench of seven judges for a final determination.
Source: Sita Soren vs. Union of India