CJI-led seven-judge Constitution Bench to reconsider 1998 verdict on immunity from prosecution for corrupt lawmakers on October 4

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, September 26

Led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, a seven-judge Constitution Bench will commence hearing on October 4 to examine if lawmakers can claim immunity from prosecution for taking bribes for voting in the House.

Besides CJI Chandrachud, other judges on the Bench are Justice AS Bopanna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Manoj Misra, the top court announced on its website.

Twenty five years after a five-judge Constitution Bench in PV Narasimha Rao’s case ruled that a lawmaker was immune to prosecution even if he/she took money to vote on the floor of the House, a five-judge Bench led by the CJI had on September 20 referred the issue to a seven-judge Constitution Bench to reconsider the correctness of the 1998 judgment.

“This enumeration of the legal position indicates that the decision in Narasimha Rao (case) is wrong… If it also furthers public morality on the part of our elected representatives, then we should not defer our decision to some uncertain day in the future…The correctness of view propounded in majority of Narsimha Rao (case) needs to be dealt with,” the CJI had said.

The important question of law relating to Parliamentary privilege under Article 105 and Article 194 of the Constitution was referred to a five-judge constitution Bench by a three-judge Bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi on March 7, 2019 in connection with JMM legislator Sita Soren’s plea claiming protection under the top court’s ruling in Narasimha Rao’s case after being accused of taking a bribe during a Rajya Sabha election.

According to Article 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.”

Based on a five-judge Constitution Bench verdict in Narasimha Rao’s case (1998) which ruled that a lawmaker was immune to prosecution even if he/she took money to vote on the floor of the House, petitioner Sita Soren had claimed protection under Article 194(2) — which is identical to Article 105(2) — and applies to state legislators.

Sita Soren, who was an MLA in the Jharkhand Assembly, is being prosecuted by CBI for allegedly taking bribes for voting in 2012 Rajya Sabha Poll.

She had been accused of receiving bribes from a Rajya Sabha candidate for casting her vote in his favour but instead cast her vote in favour of another candidate.

Her father-in-law and JMM leader Shibu Soren was saved by the 1998 Constitution Bench verdict wherein the top court ruled that MPs who took money and voted in favour of Rao’s Government were immune to prosecution. It had, however, ruled that those who gave the bribe to JMM MPs were not immune to prosecution.

Interestingly, another five-judge Constitution Bench had in 2007 ruled in Raja Rampal’s case that those who took money to ask questions in Parliament were liable to be expelled from the House permanently. Since, the 1998 and 2007 verdicts appear to be contradictory to each other; the issue will now be decided by a seven-judge Constitution Bench.

The top court had on September 20 noted that “The purpose of Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) is to ensure that members of Parliament and of state legislatures are able to discharge duties in an atmosphere of freedom without fear of the consequences that may follow. The object clearly is not to set apart the members of the legislature as persons who wield higher privileges in terms of immunity from the application of the general criminal law of the land which citizens of the land do not possess.”