Read Time: 10 minutes
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani had told the court that there was no need for reference to a larger bench as the present case did not require checking correctness of PV Narasimha Rao judgment
Supreme Court's constitution bench has reserved its judgment on the issue regarding immunity from prosecution granted to lawmakers who take money to vote in the house.
On September 21, 2023, the court had referred the judgement in PV Narasimha Rao, which held that a lawmaker was immune to prosecution even if he/she took money to vote on the floor of the House, to a seven-judge bench.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the bench today that such a privilege was granted to ensure that lawmakers vote and perform their duties fearlessly.
"Court should not be influenced by extreme examples.. like an agreement being made for bribe inside the parliament.. it can also happen that the transaction to transfer such bribe also happens inside the parliament..", SG added.
Earlier today, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria has submitted that criminalisation of politics has a deep impact on the democratic setup of our country.
"This court's judgment is Narsimha Rao allows people who are tainted to remain in politics..My submission is that minority view of Narasimha Rao judgment should be upheld..", Hansaria said.
The seven-judge bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud also comprising Justices Bopanna, Sundresh, Narasimha, Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra began hearing the matter yesterday.
Top court was yesterday told that a regime of immunities was not in fact inconsistent with the Rule of Law.
"One of the pillar of constitutionalism has been a regime of immunities, so there is no inconsistency with the rule of law..the offence of bribery is not dependent on the performance of promised favour..", submitted Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had also told the bench that the opinion of Justice SC Aggarwal in PV Narasimha judgement was correct.
He added that the present issue was more a question of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, rather than Article 105 of the Constitution.
"Suppose the MP does not act after taking the bribe..then the question of immunity does not arise. Therefore, the interpretation of PC Act is much more important..", SG Mehta said.
Senior counsel Ramachandran further submitted that offence of bribery under criminal law was complete when bribe was given and was not dependent on performance of promised favor, and this was of no consequence to constitutional immunity.
Senior Advocate PS Patwalia submitted on the object of the provision to say that it did not intend to give protection to an individual from ordinary criminal laws, but protect integrity of legislative process.
Recently, Supreme Court has been told that provisions of the Constitution must be so interpreted, that the persons committing crime are brought to justice and are not able to claim immunity from criminal liability in the garb of parliamentary privilege.
Citizen’s Rights Trust filed its written submissions before the Supreme Court, in the case of Sita Soren vs. Union of India, and submitted that the constitutional provisions regarding parliamentary privilege and immunity from prosecution by the legislators, must be interpreted having regard to the context of large scale criminalisation of politics and on the touchstone and through the prism of constitutional morality.
The present case relates to a plea filed by Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, who was accused of accepting bribe for voting in favour of a particular candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha Elections.
Soren filed a petition before the Jharkhand High Court stating that she enjoyed immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, 1950, as per which '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'.
While the High Court had dismissed her petition, she approached the top court in appeal. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Soren, argued that the petition was a regular criminal appeal which only involved the question of the application of PV Narasimha Rao. Top Court was further told that neither side had questioned the 1998 judgement.
An impleadment application has also been filed before the Supreme Court of India by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay in the instant matter seeking to assist the Constitution Bench.
"Corruption cases against influential persons are difficult to conclude due to complexity in prolonged legal procedures in aggregation with their money, political, bureaucratic powers. And if they are at all convicted, punishment/temporary monetary losses have no impact whatsoever on their social, financial & political life", the application adds.
Upadhyay has further submitted that Corruption undermines democracy and rule of law, and leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes quality of life and allows organized crime like separatism terrorism, naxalism, radicalism, gambling, smuggling, kidnapping, money laundering and extortion and other threats to human security to flourish.
Earlier this month, Supreme Court of India had set up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the matter involving the immunity for MPs and MLAs from being prosecuted for bribery charges.
Case Title: Sita Soren vs. Union of India
Please Login or Register
