Parliamentary privilege (MLA Bribery)
Parliamentary privilege, codified in Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution, is integral to deliberative democracy in facilitating the functioning of a parliamentary form of governance. It ensures that legislators in whom citizens repose their faith can express their views and opinions on the floor of the House without ‘fear or favour’.
With the protection of parliamentary privilege, a legislator belonging to a political party with a minuscule vote share can fearlessly vote on any motion; a legislator from a remote region of the country can raise issues that impact her constituency without the fear of being harassed by legal prosecution; and a legislator can demand accountability without the apprehension of being accused of defamation.
Read Also – What is Temporary Injunction :Its Main Principles, Grounds & Procedure | Order 39
Sita Soren Vs Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019)
Reference – Parliamentary privilege
The Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment dated 17 February 2014 of the High Court of Jharkhand.1 An election was held on 30 March 2012 to elect two members of the Rajya Sabha representing the State of Jharkhand.
The appellant, belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha,2 was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Jharkhand. The allegation against the appellant is that she accepted a bribe from an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favour.
However, as borne out from the open balloting for the Rajya Sabha seat she did not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver and instead cast her vote in favour of a candidate belonging to her own party.
The round of election in question was annulled and a fresh election was held where the appellant voted in favour of the candidate from her own party again.
Read Also – Section 9: What is suit of civil Nature under CPC? | Can the court test all civil promises
Overview of the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao
The general elections for the Tenth Lok Sabha were held in 1991. Congress (I) emerged as the single largest party and formed a minority government with Mr PV Narasimha Rao as the Prime Minister.
A motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok Sabha against the government. The support of fourteen members was needed to defeat the no-confidence motion.
The motion was defeated with two hundred and fifty-one members voting in support and two hundred and sixty-five members voting against the motion.
A group of Members of Parliament owing allegiance to the JMM and the Janata Dal (Ajit Singh) Group6 voted against the no-confidence motion. Notably, one MP belonging to the JD (AS), namely, Ajit Singh, abstained from voting.
Conclusion –
In the course of this judgment, while analysing the reasoning of the majority and minority in PV Narasimha Rao (supra) we have independently adjudicated on all the aspects of the controversy namely, whether by virtue of Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution a Member of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, as the case may be, can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court. We disagree with and overrule the judgment of the majority on this aspect.
Our conclusions are thus The doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law. A larger bench of this Court may reconsider a previous decision in appropriate cases, bearing in mind the tests which have been formulated in the precedents of this Court.
The judgment of the majority in PV Narasimha Rao (supra), which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature who has allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or speaking has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy.
There is a grave danger of this Court allowing an error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered;
Unlike the House of Commons in the UK, India does not have ‘ancient and undoubted’ privileges which were vested after a struggle between Parliament and the King. Privileges in pre-independence India were governed by statute in the face of a reluctant colonial government.
The statutory privilege transitioned to a constitutional privilege after the commencement of the Constitution;
Whether a claim to privilege in a particular case conforms to the parameters of the Constitution is amenable to judicial review;
An individual member of the legislature cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity under Articles 105 and 194 from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with a vote or speech in the legislature.
Such a claim to immunity fails to fulfil the twofold test that the claim is tethered to the collective functioning of the House and that it is necessary to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator;
Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution seek to sustain an environment in which debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature. This purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner because of an act of bribery;
The expressions “anything” and “any” must be read in the context of the accompanying expressions in Articles 105(2) and 194(2). The words “in respect of” means ‘arising out of’ or ‘bearing a clear relation to’ and cannot be interpreted to mean anything which may have even a remote connection with the speech or vote given;
Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast. The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee;
Related Article
What do you mean by doctrine of res judicata? | Essential Elements & Objective
Slip and Fall Settlement Without a Lawyer?
