In a historic verdict, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment on Monday, which held that members of parliament and legislative assemblies could claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in contemplation of a vote or speech in the legislature.
Hours after the apex court rendered its verdict, PM Modi took to social media and called it a great judgment.
Taking to social media, the PM wrote, "SWAGATAM! A great judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system."
The seven-judge bench that pronounced the latest verdict was led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. Other judges on the bench include Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench overturned the 1998 judgment in the PV Narasimha Rao case. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud remarked during the hearing, "We disagree with the judgment in the PV Narasimha case, which grants immunity to legislators for alleged bribery aimed at influencing their speech or vote in a manner that carries significant consequences."
The apex court held that corruption and bribery by legislators undermine the functioning of Indian Parliamentary democracy. The bench, led by the CJI, stated that bribery does not enjoy immunity under Article 105 or 194.
Act of bribery is a criminal offense
"The act of bribery committed by a member is a criminal offense that is unrelated to the act of voting or delivering a speech in the legislature," the CJI remarked.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the interpretation of the PV Narasimha judgment contradicts Articles 105 and 194 of the constitution. The court pointed out that the interpretation given to the issue at hand and the majority judgment in the PV Narasimha Rao case lead to a paradoxical situation where a legislator is shielded from prosecution when they accept a bribe and subsequently act in accordance with the agreement.
Chief Justice Chandrachud further observed that the offense of bribery is committed upon the acceptance of illegal gratification and is not contingent on the subsequent delivery of a vote or speech.
Following the verdict, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay stated that the apex court's judgment clarifies that any legislator who accepts bribes to ask questions or cast votes in the legislature will not be immune from prosecution. He emphasised that the accused legislator will not receive any special treatment but will face charges of corruption.
"The Supreme Court has ruled that accepting bribes in exchange for asking questions or casting votes will be tantamount to undermining India's parliamentary democracy," the lawyer concluded.
In October last year, a bench of seven judges, headed by the Chief Justice of India, reserved the order after hearing submissions.
What was the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment?
In 1998, a five-judge bench with a 3:2 majority ruled that MPs and MLAs were immune from prosecution in bribery cases related to their speeches or votes in Legislative Assemblies and Parliament. The Supreme Court cited the parliamentary privileges conferred by Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, as long as they fulfilled their end of the bargain for which they received a bribe.
(With inputs from ANI)
