CITATION Crl.A.
451/2019
DATE OF
PENDING
JUDGEMENT
COURT SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT SITA SOREN
RESPONDENT UNION OF INDIA
D.Y CHANDRACHUD CJI, A.S. BOPPANA J, M.M. SUNDRESH
BENCH J,P.S NARASIMHA J,J.B. PARIDWALA J, P.V SANJAY KUMAR J,
MANOJ MISRA J.
the assertion of privilege by an individual Member of Parliament or State
Legislature would be governed by a two-fold test. First, the privilege
claimed has to be tethered to the collective functioning of the House.
Second, its necessity must bear a functional relationship to the discharge of
the legislator’s essential duties.
Members of the Legislature and persons involved in the work of the
Legislature’s committees must be able to exercise their free will and
conscience to enrich the functions of the House. This is exactly what is taken
away when a Member is induced to vote in a certain way not because of
their belief or position on an issue but because of a bribe taken by him/her,
the Sita Soren bench reasoned. Corruption and bribery of Members of the
Legislature erode the foundation of Indian parliamentary democracy. It is
destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and
creates a polity that deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and
representative democracy, the judgment in Sita Soren reads.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Election Commission of India started the process in March 2012 to
fill two open Rajya Sabha seats from Jharkhand. There were several steps
in this procedure, including polling, vetting, withdrawal, and nomination
submission. Both independent candidates and members of several
political parties were among the contenders. Remarkably, none of the
main political parties had a clear majority to ensure the success of their
nominee.
In the middle of this, independent contenders Pawan Kumar
Dhoot, Ansuman Mishra, and Raj Kumar Agarwal entered the race,
perhaps altering the result of the election. The political
organization Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) proposed independent
candidate R. K. Agarwal for nomination. Members of the JMM
Legislative Assembly (MLAs), including Sita Soren, the petitioner
in this case, supported this motion.
Nonetheless, a complaint was filed on March 27, 2012, by two
members of Parliament, Babu Lal Marandi and Dr. Ajay Kumar.
They admitted that there may be horse-trading and that money
was being used illegally during the execution process. The
Election Commission responded by alerting the appropriate
authorities. As a result, an automobile totaling Rs. 2.15 crore in
unauthorized cash was installed. It was allegedly meant to be
distributed to members who took part.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was then launched, and the court
ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take up the
issue after realizing the seriousness of the allegiances pertaining
to money power and horse-trading. The Income Tax Department
was relieved of its responsibilities by the CBI.
According to the inquiry, Sita Soren reportedly got in touch with
R. K. Agarwal and offered him an advance payment of Rs. 50
lakhs in exchange for recommending him. At the home of Nalin
Soren, a sizable gathering of JMM MLAs, a "air bag" filled with
cash was presented. After then, this bag was shipped to
Jamshedpur. Furthermore, it was believed that Agarwal gave Sita
Sonnen an amount of Rs. 1 crore in a Ranchi hotel.
Once the effort was finished, many people, including Sita Soren,
were named on a charge sheet. The characters nodded, feeling
vindictively satisfied for having put forth Agarwal's candidacy and
cast their votes in support of him. After giving these accusations
careful thought, the court decided to address them.
In response, Sita Sorеn’s legal tеam stated that Article 194(2) of the
Constitution of India granted immunity to members of the Legislature for
anything said or any vote given in the Legislaturе. They argued that this
immunity should shield them from prosecution.
The court, taking into account the arguments presented, referred to a
previous Supreme Court case, “P. V. Narsimha Rao vs. State”, 1998(CBI-
SPE). The majority view in that case stipulated that immunity would be
available if the act (speech or vote) was an essential part of the cause of
action. In Sita Sorеn’s case, the court concluded that their act of
receiving money did not have a nexus with their subsequent vote. This
was because she did not vote in favor of Agarwal. Consequentially, the
court determined that she did not have immunity under Article 194(2) by
allowing the proceedings against her to continue.
ISSUES RAISED:
The legal issue in this case is whether the immunity provided under
Article 105(2)/194(2) of the Indian Constitution extends to cases
involving allegations of bribery for making a speech or voting in the
Parliament?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT:
In support of maintaining the Narasimha Rao ruling, the appellant
makes a number of strong claims. First of all, they contend that
Narasimha Rao is a carefully thought-out and well-reasoned
precedent, and that it would be inappropriate to overthrow it. The
appellant argues Narasimha Rao does not meet the requirement
that established precedents should only be reversed in
extraordinary circumstances. In addition, the appellant argues
that constitutional privileges and immunities—specifically, Articles
105 and 194—are essential for protecting lawmakers from any
pressure or resistance. They see these immunities as an essential
component of the constitutional system that make it possible for
lawmakers to carry out their responsibilities without interference.
Moreover, the appellant disagrees with Justice S. C. Agarwal's
proposed restrictive meaning of the words "in respect of." They
contend that such an interpretation would not be in line with the
framers' original intentions and would conflict with the majority's
understanding of the Constitution. Finally, the appellant
emphasizes that every statement made or vote cast by
lawmakers is protected by Articles 105 and 194. This all-inclusive
safeguard covers acts performed to fulfil legislative
responsibilities, regardless of whether they take place within or
outside of the legislative chamber.
Essentially, these claims serve as the cornerstone of the
appellant's case, which is based on how constitutional rights and
privileges should be interpreted in relation to legislative actions
and how the Narasimha Rao ruling should be upheld.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:
The arguments put out by the respondents cast doubt on the
legitimacy of the Narasimha Rao ruling. They first contend that
the majority's reading of Articles 105 and 194, which grant
lawmakers immunity from prosecution in crimes pertaining to
their legislative activity, is incorrect. They argue that because of
the majority's interpreting of the Constitution, these immunities
may be applied broadly and maybe misused, protecting
lawmakers from punishment for a variety of crimes unconnected
to their work in the legislature.
Furthermore, the respondent concurs with Justice S. C. Agarwal's
dissenting judgment, which suggests a more restrictive meaning
of the words "in respect of." They contend that this reading
ensures that immunity is only given for acts that are directly
related to legislative duties and is more in line with the authors'
original purpose. This viewpoint emphasizes the significance of
preserving the integrity of the legislative process as opposed to
offering potentially exploitable blank checks and balances.
The reply further draws attention to the possible repercussions of
interpreting the majority's "nexus test" broadly. They contend
that this strategy may result in the "criminalization of politics," as
legislators may be exempt from prosecution for a variety of illegal
activities as long as they can show a shaky link to their official
position. They contend that this compromises the responsibility
and trust that ought to be fundamental to a democratic society.
Lastly, the respondent argues that legislators' protection should
not be extended to actions that disrupt the legislative process or
the operation of legislative assemblies or Parliament. They stress
that such interference is harmful to the government's actual
operations and shouldn't be shielded by constitutional
protections.
In conclusion, the respondent's arguments focus on the necessity
of a more constrained interpretation of the constitutional rights
and privileges accorded to legislators, highlighting the
significance of upholding the integrity of the legislative process
and guaranteeing accountability within the democratic system.
They argue for a reassessment and possible adjustment of the
current precedent established by the Narasimha Rao ruling.
Article 105(2) of the Constitution of India grants immunity to Members of
Parliament (‘MPs’) against prosecution in respect of anything said or any
vote given by him in Parliament or any committee. Article 194(2) of the
Constitution grants similar immunity to the members of Legislative
Assembly.
PV Narsimha Rao case, Constitution Bench of 5 judges upheld the
above immunity to the MPs as per Article 105(2) which included the
speech or vote made in furtherance of receiving illegal gratification or
bribe.
Privileges provided by the Constitution of India:
In context of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and
its Members, Article 105(2) reads:
o 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.
In context of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State
Legislatures and their Members, Article 194(2) reads:
o No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to
any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or
any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee
thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the
publication by or under the authority of a House of such a
Legislature of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Members
of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs)
cannot claim any immunity from prosecution for accepting bribes to cast a
vote or make a speech in the House in a particular fashion. Article 105(2) of
the Indian Constitution confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in
respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or on any
parliamentary committee. Similarly, Article 194(2) grants protection to
MLAs.
Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), was accused
of accepting a bribe to cast her vote in favour of a certain candidate in the
Rajya Sabha elections of 2012. Soon, the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) filed a chargesheet against her. In 2014, the Jharkhand High Court
dismissed Ms. Soren’s plea seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings
against her. In the plea, she had claimed she enjoyed legal immunity under
Article 194(2). The dismissal in High Court led to an appeal being filed in
the Supreme Court.
On September 23, 2014, a two-judge Bench referred the matter to a three-
judge Bench. In March 2019, the three-judge headed by then CJI Ranjan
Gogoi noted that the decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao dealt directly with
the case. Considering that the case had been decided by a narrow margin (a
3:2 split among the five judges), it was referred to a larger bench
underscoring that the issue was “substantial and of general public
importance”.
Eventually, on September 20, 2023, a five-judge Bench headed by CJI
Chandrachud doubted the correctness of the majority view in P.V.
Narasimha and accordingly referred the matter to a seven-judge Bench.
While recognising that it is an “important issue that concerns our polity”, the
bench added that the object of parliamentary privileges 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.
Observations in Sita Soren vs Union of India
1. Nature of Privileges in India:
o Privileges not absolute: 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.
o Individual Member’s Claim of Privilege: An individual member of the
legislature cannot claim privilege to seek immunity from prosecution under
Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution for charges of bribery related to
their votes or speeches in the legislature.
o Such claim of immunity fails to meet the twofold test which involves
examining whether such action is (1) connected to the collective
functioning of the legislative house and (2) the action has a functional
relationship “to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.“
o Purpose of Articles 105 and 194: Articles 105 and 194 aim to create an
environment conducive to debate and deliberation within the legislature.
o This purpose gets undermined when a member is influenced to vote or
speak in a particular manner due to bribery.
o Interpretation of Expressions: The expressions “anything” and “any” in
Articles 105(2) and 194(2) must be interpreted in the context of the
accompanying expressions.
o The phrase “in respect of” means ‘arising out of’ or ‘bearing a clear relation
to’ and cannot be construed to include anything remotely connected to the
speech or vote given by a legislator.
Bribe as a crime:
o Bribery and Immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194: Bribery is not
immune under Article 105(2) and its corresponding provision in Article
194 because it constitutes a crime that is not essential to the casting of a
vote or the ability to decide how a vote should be cast.
The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech
in the House or a Committee.
o Impact of Corruption and Bribery:
Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures undermine
probity in public life.
o Misuse and Immunity:
The potential for misuse against individual members of the
legislature is neither increased nor decreased by recognizing the
court’s jurisdiction to prosecute a legislator alleged to have
engaged in bribery.
o Completion of Bribery Offense: The offense of bribery is completed at the
moment when the legislator accepts the bribe, regardless of whether the
agreed action is performed or not.
o The majority interpretation in the PV Narasimha Rao case created a
paradox. While accepting a bribe and voting as promised granted immunity,
whereas voting independently or contrary led to prosecution. This situation
has been corrected by the present case.
Conclusion:
By committing an act of bribery, the immunity of speech or action without fear or
favour is taken away when a member votes in a certain way not because of their
belief or position on an issue but because of a bribe taken by the member.
Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian
Parliamentary democracy. It is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals
of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible,
responsive, and representative democracy.
