Facts for Prelims (FFP)
Source: IE
Context: The Supreme Court of India has decided to revisit its 1998 Constitution Bench judgment in the P V Narasimha Rao case, which granted legislators immunity from criminal prosecution on bribery charges for their speeches or votes in Parliament.
- A 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, has referred the matter to a larger 7-judge Bench. This decision aims to reconsider the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, which extend this privilege to members of Parliament and State Legislatures, respectively.
Background of the case:
- The P V Narasimha Rao case originated from the 1993 JMM bribery case, where some members of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) party were accused of accepting bribes to vote against a no-confidence motion against the government led by P V Narasimha Rao. The Supreme Court had granted them immunity under Article 105(2) in that case.
Recent Issue:
- The recent revisit decision came up in a case involving bribery charges against JMM MLA Sita Soren, who was accused of accepting a bribe to vote for an independent candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. The High Court of Jharkhand had rejected her plea to quash the charges based on Article 194(2). The matter reached the Supreme Court, where it was referred to a larger Bench due to its substantial public importance.
The 5-judge Bench, in its decision to refer the case, noted that the issue concerns the essence of parliamentary democracy and the freedom of legislators to speak and vote without fear of criminal consequences. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) is to enable legislators to carry out their duties without fear, rather than granting them higher privileges and immunity from general criminal laws.
