GS Paper 2
Syllabus: Parliamentary Privileges
Source: TH
Context: The Supreme Court ruled that MPs and MLAs can’t claim immunity for bribery. Article 105(2) and 194(2) protections have been overturned.
- The case involved Sita Soren (daughter-in-law of JMM chief Shibu Soren) accused of taking bribes for the vote.
What is a Bribe-for-vote?
Bribe-for-vote refers to the act of offering or accepting a bribe in exchange for casting a vote in a specific manner, typically during elections or legislative proceedings. It undermines the integrity of the electoral process and is considered a form of corruption.
Examples of Bribe-for-vote:
- Cash-for-vote Scandal (2008): During a trust vote in the Indian Parliament in 2008, several Members of Parliament (MPs) were allegedly offered bribes to vote in favour of the ruling coalition
- Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Bribery Case (1993) (also known as P V Narasimha Rao case): In this case, JMM chief and former Union Minister Shibu Soren and some of his party members were accused of accepting bribes to vote against a no-confidence motion against the then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao’s government.
- The Supreme Court had quashed the case against the JMM MPs, citing immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution
What does Article 105(2) and 194(2) say?
Articles 105(2) and 194(2) grant immunity to members of Parliament and state legislatures from prosecution in courts for anything said or any vote given in the respective legislative bodies. This immunity ensures that legislators can perform their duties without fear of legal consequences.
What is the present case about?
Sita Soren Bribery Case (2012): 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. She claimed immunity under Article 194(2), citing the SC 1998 Ruling in the P.V. Narasimha Rao Case
Key takeaways from the 7-bench SC ruling:
- No violation of the doctrine of stare decisis: The Court can change prior rulings, such as in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case if it has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy.
- The principle of stare decisis requires courts to follow precedent.
- Legislative privileges must conform with constitutional parameters: Unlike the UK’s historic rights, India’s parliamentary privileges derive from statute and constitutional privilege, subject to judicial review.
- Constitutional immunity from bribery charges lacks a “two-fold test”: Immunity from prosecution for bribery contradicts the purpose of fostering debate and deliberation in the legislature, failing to meet the test of necessity for a legislator’s essential duties.
- The “two-fold test” is used to determine the validity of claims to legislative privileges: It involves (i) assessing whether the privilege claimed is essential to the collective functioning of the legislative body and (ii) whether the privilege claimed is necessary for the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.
- Bribery not immune: Bribery doesn’t enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) if it’s not intrinsic to the voting process, challenging the interpretation that any act related to parliamentary duties is immune from prosecution.
- Accepting a bribe constitutes a criminal offence
- Courts and the House can exercise parallel jurisdictions: The Court’s jurisdiction to prosecute bribery charges doesn’t interfere with the House’s authority to address breaches of discipline, as judicial proceedings and House actions operate independently.
- Corruption by legislators erodes the foundation of democracy: Legislative corruption undermines democratic values and citizens’ representation, eroding probity in public life and creating a polity that deprives citizens of a responsible democracy.
- Legislative privileges apply equally to Rajya Sabha elections: The principles regarding legislative privileges extend to Rajya Sabha elections and appointments of the President and Vice-President, ensuring consistency and adherence to constitutional principles.
Impacts of the Supreme Court’s judgment:
| Positive Impacts | Negative Impacts |
| Upholds Judicial Review: Allows for reconsideration of past rulings, ensuring alignment with constitutional principles. | Potential Legal Uncertainty: Overturning established precedent may lead to legal uncertainty and interpretation challenges. |
| Combatting Corruption: Strengthens the fight against corruption by removing immunity for legislators facing bribery charges. | Impact on Legislative Independence: Some argue that subjecting legislators to criminal prosecution may impede their independence and effectiveness in fulfilling their duties. |
| Preservation of Democratic Principles: Reinforces the integrity of democratic institutions by holding legislators accountable for their actions. | Political Ramifications: The judgment may have political ramifications, potentially affecting the candidates who had been elected through bribery. |
| Clarity on Bribery Offenses: Clarifies that bribery offences are not immune from prosecution, ensuring accountability and transparency in governance. | Challenges in Implementation: Implementing the judgment effectively may pose logistical and procedural challenges for law enforcement agencies and the judiciary. |
| Equal Application of Law: Ensures equal treatment under the law by removing special privileges for legislators accused of bribery. |
What are Parliamentary Privileges?
Parliamentary privileges are special rights, immunities, and exemptions enjoyed by MPs and MLAs, defined in Articles 105 and 192 of the Indian Constitution. Members of Parliament and state assemblies are exempted from civil liability (not criminal) for statements or acts during their duties. These privileges are only applicable while they are serving as members; they cease once their membership ends.
| Parliamentary Privilege | Description |
| Freedom of Speech in Parliament | Members of Parliament have the freedom of speech and expression, distinct from the general freedom guaranteed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. |
| Limitations: The freedom of speech is subject to constitutional provisions and parliamentary rules (Article 118). Members cannot discuss the conduct of judges under Article 121, except in certain cases. | |
| Freedom from Arrest | Members are immune from arrest in civil cases 40 days before and after a session. Within Parliament’s limits, arrest requires the house’s permission. |
| Limitations: Members can be arrested outside Parliament’s limits for criminal charges under specific acts like the Preventive Detention Act, Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA), etc. | |
| Right to Prohibit Publication | Article 105(2) grants immunity from liability for publishing reports or discussions under a member’s authority. The public’s awareness of parliamentary proceedings is crucial. |
| Right to Exclude Strangers | Members have the authority to exclude non-members from parliamentary proceedings to ensure free and fair discussion. |
About the Privileges Committee:
It comprises 15 members in the Lok Sabha and 10 in the Rajya Sabha and safeguards the freedom, authority, and dignity of Parliament. It examines breaches of privilege, determines facts, and makes recommendations. If a matter is referred, it investigates and presents a report to the House for consideration, followed by a debate and action based on the House’s decision. Typically, it handles cases where MPs allege breach of privilege by outsiders or other MPs, with powers to recommend admonitions, reprimands, suspension, or expulsion, often resolved with an apology.
Insta Links:
Mains Links:
Individual parliamentarian’s role as the national lawmaker is on a decline, which in turn, has adversely impacted the quality of debates and their outcome. Discuss. (UPSC 2019)
