Sita Soren, a member of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) was accused in a bribery case for voting a specific candidate in 2012 elections of Rajya Sabha in lieu of some bribe accepted by her. Later on, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) issued charge sheet against her for voting in exchange of bribe. Jharkhand High Court relied upon PV Narasimha Rao's case judgment. Supreme Court held member of union legislature (MP) and of state legislature (MLA) cannot claim immunity from charge of bribery relating to voting or giving speech hence, overruled 5-judge bench judgment in PV Narasimha Rao's case. The Court observed that "Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life".

Background
In the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, 5-Judge Constitution Bench held "no member (of Parliament and State Legislature) is answerable in a court of law or any similar tribunal for what he has said in Parliament. This again is recognition of the fact that a member needs the freedom to say what he thinks is right in Parliament undeterred by the fear of being proceeded against. A vote, whether cast by voice or gesture or the aid of a machine, is treated as an extension of speech or a substitute for speech and is given the protection".

A similar dispute arose recently in which a MLA is accused of accepting bribe in exchange of giving their vote to a specified candidate. A question has arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether lawmakers have such immunity or not.

Facts of the case
The appellant in this case is a member of Bihar Legislative Assembly from Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM). Election was held on 30th March 2012 to elect two members representing the state. Sita Soren was accused of receiving bribe from an independent candidate for voting in his favour in the elections of Rajya Sabha of year 2012 in which open ballot system was followed. However she did not gave her vote instead voted for the candidate from her party i.e. JMM. Appellant argued and they heavily relied upon the P.V. Narasimha Rao Case.

She gave an application to the Jharkhand High Court to end the criminal charges filed against her under the "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988". She asserted that she is an MLA thus she have benefit of support from Article 194(2) of the "Constitution of India". She anticipated on a verdict of the Supreme Court, in the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v State of year 1988 and argued that there is a precedent supporting her case. In which members of legislature have immunity for their vote or anything said in debate in the session of the house under Article 105(2).

The High Court of Jharkhand agreed with the verdict of Narasimha case but culminated that she had not behaved as per conditions of the bribe. Hence, cannot claim protection of "Parliamentary Privileges".

On 26 March 2014, Soren filed Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. On 7 March 2019, the three-judge Bench observed that the "wide ramification of the question that has arisen" from the case. In the interest of public importance, the case was referred to a 5-judge Constitution Bench.

On 20 September 2023, the five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court accepted the correctness of P.V. Narasimha Rao. As the decision was made by a five-judge Bench, the Court held that "a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision in challenge" must decide the case. The present case was thus referred to a larger bench of seven judges. 7-judge bench held that, "the offence of bribery is complete the moment illegal gratification is accepted and is not dependent on the actual performance of the promise for which the bribe was sought".

Issues of the case:

• Can the members of parliament and state legislature claim immunity from prosecution for engaging in taking bribe in exchange of voting in Parliament or State Legislature under Article 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution?
• Whether the privilege/immunity dependent on the actual performance of the promise for which the bribe was sought?
• Should the court rely on the judgement of PV Narasimha Rao's case and follow the principles of the doctrine of stare decisis?
• Does the bribery offence as per section-7(3) of the "PCA" is complete when agreed and received or the commission of the act is necessary for which the bribe has been taken?

Plaintiff's Argument:
It was contented that the matter was out of the jurisdiction of the court as it was a matter relating to the legislature. However, the Court repudiated the same and clarified that the court have jurisdiction to deal with offences of members.

They relied on the doctrine of "Stare Decisis". According to the doctrine Court is circumscribe with the precedents which "stood undisturbed since 1998".

It was further asserted that the members of parliament and state legislature were immune which is imperative to preserve the "parliamentary freedom of speech and expression" and it acts as a preventive measure of oppression.

They remained dependent on the old precedent formed in P.V. Narasimha case and argued that the act for which bribe was given was not performed by the applicant hence according to 1988 verdict she must get the immunity.

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran asserted that, "Offence committed prior to speech or vote is protected by immunity". He gave an example of hate speech that it will be protected in interior of the house. He further clarified that, "but what if there was a conspiracy to engage in hate speech days before it was actually delivered" hence the immunity will be provided for foregoing offence of conspiracy.

Defendant's Arguments
Senior Advocate Sankaranarayanan argued that, "Cloak of immunity is not for those who interfere with the legislative process" and asserted that words quoted by Justice S.C. Agarwal in 1988 case was very relevant when bearing in mind about criminality of the lawmakers who take bribe.

Senior Advocate Vijay expostulated with correctness of Narasimha's verdict. He further clarified that, "the privilege enjoyed by the legislators should begin and terminate inside the house of the parliament" and any criminal act committed exterior of the house will result into criminal prosecution. Then the nexus of crime with legislature conduct would be absolutely immaterial.

Venkataramani indicated how members exploit the immunity provided to them and quoted that, "privileges could not be misused to dilute the trust afforded to them". Asking for protection for the misdeed of bribery is detrimental to what our constitution provided i.e. "Parliamentary Democracy".

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that, as per section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), "Performance of a promise after accepting a bribe is not an essential ingredient".

Judgement
The Apex Court held that both the bribe takers and bribe givers are guilty of the bribery offence and contempt of the house. Even if the act was committed by the member of legislature, the same cannot be protected by giving it a name of "Parliamentary Privilege". Hence, Sita Soren cannot claim the immunity of Parliamentary Privileges.

The Supreme Court distinguished between the outcome and intention. The court said that, "the corruption is not solely about the outcome, but significantly about the intention to engage in corrupt behaviour".

The verdict of the present case gave a Two-Fold Test in order to claim the immunity of the privileges. When immunity is asked by a member it should be related to the collective function of the parliament or state legislature if it is not related then the member will fail to claim protection of parliamentary privileges. Secondly, the court clarified that, "the immunity sought should have a functional relationship to the discharge of the duty of an individual legislator". Thus when a parliamentarian or any lawmaker asked for protection for the offence of bribery is completely detrimental to parliamentary democracy hence, the member fails to get immunity.

The Apex Court declared that, "the offence of bribery ends when illegal gratification is received" In the present dispute, the bench asserted that the verdict of P.V. Narasimha case demonstrated a "paradoxical outcome" as it established an "artificial distinction" between people who agreed and accepted the bribe and completed the act for which the bribe was taken and people who agreed and accepted bribe but not completed the act for which the bribe was taken.

The Court further declared that, "as per the Prevention of Corruption Act, the mere "obtaining," "accepting" or "attempting" to obtain an undue advantage to act or not act in a certain way is sufficient to complete the offence". Therefore it is immaterial whether the act for which the bribe is accepted is committed or not.

Comment:
Clause (1) of Article 105 declares that "there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament". Clause (2) provides that "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".

P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (JMM Bribery case), the Apex Court clarified the expressions "in respect of" under article 105(2) should be given wide meanings and there should be nexus/connection with the speech or voting done by the members. Thus, the member who took the bribe but voted against the motion were provided protection hence were not answerable in the court whereas, the member which took bribe and voted in favour were not protected.

Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, 5-judge bench of the court explained when the speech or comments made convert into personal attacks on one's reputation or any vulgar or abusive comments made will not be provided protection under article 105(2). The Hon'ble Court explained "it would amount to contempt of the house or breach of privilege".

The Supreme Court in the State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith Case, observed, that "privileges and immunities are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general law of the land, particularly as case of, the criminal law which governs the action of every citizen."

The present position is that in Sita Soren v. Union of India, the Apex Court held that both the bribe takers and bribe givers are guilty of the contempt of the house. Even if the act was committed by the member of legislature, the same cannot be protected by giving it a name of "Parliamentary Privilege".

There some other parliamentary privileges provided under art 105 and 194 and some by parliament by law:

• Freedom from arrest: According to this, "no member of Parliament or State Legislature shall be arrested or imprisoned in a civil proceeding during a period of 40 days before and 40 days after the session of the house". If a member is arrested within the specified period, then he should be released so that he can freely attend the proceedings of the house.
   
• Right to Exclude Strangers: This gives liberty to the members and house individually to disallow strangers or non-members from the session of the house. This also extends to holding secret meetings in the house.
   
• Right to prohibit the Publication of Proceedings: In M.S.M. Sharma v. S.K. Sinha, (Searchlight Case), the editor was accused of contempt of the Bihar Legislative Assembly for publishing the parts of the proceedings of the house which was prohibited. The Supreme Court upheld the validity and explained that the Speaker or Chairman has the power to prohibit the publication of proceedings.
   
• Right to Punish for contempt of the house: The Parliament and State Legislature can punish, whether a member or non-member, for contempt of the house of the legislature. It was observed that the chairperson can punish for both present and past contempt.

Irrespective of the liberties given to the houses of legislature but it is not absolute thus, the acceptance of bribe, it doesn't matter what was the intention is completely wrong. Hence the member cannot ask for immunity of Parliamentary Privileges.

Conclusion
The judgment of PV Narasimha Rao which grants immunity to members of legislature involving in bribery in exchange of voting is detrimental to "Parlimentary Democracy". Thus members of legislature cannot claim privilege under Article 105 and 194 of the Constitution. Article 105 and 194, aims to maintain parliamentary democracy and healthy environment in debating and voting. The objective is demolished when member vote or debate in exchange of bribe. The words "in respect of" cannot be interpreted to support the action of accepting bribe.

Thus, it can be concluded that bribery is not immune from art 105 and 194 whether taken for voting or debating or particular speech. The court further clarified that, "there is difference between the scope, purpose and consequences of the court exercising jurisdiction in relation to a criminal offence and the authority of the house to discipline its member".

The Hon'ble court held that, "the offence of bribery is complete the moment illegal gratification is accepted and is not dependent on the actual performance of the promise for which the bribe was sought". As a result, a 7-judge constitutional bench of Supreme Court overturned a twenty five year old precedent and held that the bribery charges are not safeguarded by the parliamentary privileges. The incidents of corruption and bribery erode the footing of democracy and detrimental to the public interest. Which result in violating the main objective of our prestigous Constitution of India.

Written By: Simran Bains, B.com Llb (Hons) 3rd Year - University Institute Of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh.