Supreme Court refers Narasimha Rao case ruling that protected corrupt lawmakers from prosecution to seven-judge Bench

Satya Prakash

Advertisement

New Delhi, September 20

Can lawmakers claim immunity from prosecution for taking bribes for voting in the House?

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, the Supreme Court on Wednesday 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. The only question is: should we await it to arise at sometime in future or lay down a law…We must not also ignore that 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,” a five-judge Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud said.

The reference order came after senior advocate PS Patwalia – who was on November 15 last year appointed as amicus curiae to assist the top court – submitted that a lawmaker can’t claim immunity from prosecution for taking bribes for voting or making a speech in the House. “It’s too important an issue to be left like that…,” Patwalia said, urging the matter to be sent to a larger Bench.

The Bench chose to ignore the suggestions of Attorney General R Venkataramani and senior counsel Raju Ramachandran (representing the petitioner) who submitted that it was not needed to get into the constitutional question as the case in hand didn’t warrant it.

“This case must rest on its own facts…Prosecution must continue,” Venkataramani said, adding, there was no question was any protection under Article 194 of the Constitution as the act in question didn’t relate to anything said or any vote given in the House.

The reference order came while dealing with an important questions of law relating to Parliamentary privilege under Article 105 and Article 194 of the Constitution referred to it by a three-judge Bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had 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.”

Petitioner Sita Soren claimed protection under Article 194(2) — which is identical to Article 105(2) — and applies to state legislators.

A five-judge Constitution Bench had in 1998 in PV Narasimha Rao’s case held that a lawmaker was immune to prosecution even if he/she took money to vote on the floor of the House.

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.

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.