Context:
In a recent development, the Supreme Court overturned a 25-year-old majority opinion in the P V Narasimha Rao v State (CBI/Spe) Case, 1998, commonly known as the JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha) bribery case. The SC clarified that parliamentary privileges do not shield lawmakers from prosecution for bribery, signaling a departure from the previous ruling’s immunity for lawmakers who accepted bribes could not be prosecuted for corruption if they followed through with voting or speaking in the House as agreed.
Relevance:
GS II: Polity and Governance
Dimensions of the Article:
- P V Narasimha Rao Case: Supreme Court’s Evolving Rulings
- What does Article 105 say?
- Parliamentary Privilege: History and Restrictions
P V Narasimha Rao Case: Supreme Court’s Evolving Rulings
- Case Background: In the 1993 P V Narasimha Rao case, JMM MPs faced allegations of bribery for voting against a No-Confidence motion, shedding light on corruption within the parliamentary system.
- 1998 Ruling: Immunity for Bribery: The 1998 Supreme Court ruling granted immunity to MPs and MLAs from prosecution in bribery cases if they fulfilled their end of the bargain, citing Parliamentary Privilege (Article 105(2)). The decision prioritized governmental stability over individual accountability.
- 2024 Ruling: Overturning Immunity: In a recent 7-Judge Constitution Bench ruling, the 1998 decision was overturned. The SC highlighted the detrimental impact of bribery on democratic principles, emphasizing that immunity doesn’t extend to bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This shift underscores a commitment to accountability and integrity in governance, aligning with the principles of a responsible and representative democracy in India.
What does Article 105 say?
- Article 105 of the Constitution deals with “powers, privileges, etc of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof”, and has four clauses. It reads:
- Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.
- No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of any thing 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 other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
- The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament.”
- Simply put, Members of Parliament are exempted from any legal action for any statement made or act done in the course of their duties. For example, a defamation suit cannot be filed for a statement made in the House.
- This immunity extends to certain non-members as well, such as the Attorney General for India or a Minister who may not be a member but speaks in the House. In cases where a member oversteps or exceeds the contours of admissible free speech, the Speaker or the House itself will deal with it, as opposed to the court.
Parliamentary Privilege: History and Restrictions
Origins of Parliamentary Privilege
- Provision first brought to India by Government of India Act, 1935
- References the powers and privileges enjoyed by the House of Commons in Britain
- Initial draft of the Indian Constitution contained a reference to the House of Commons, but it was later dropped
- Privileges of the House of Commons in Britain are based in common law developed over centuries through precedents
Historical Precedents
- In the 17th-century case of ‘R vs Elliot, Holles and Valentine’, the House of Lords provided immunity to a member of the House of Commons who was arrested for seditious words spoken in a debate and for violence against the Speaker, saying that words spoken in Parliament should only be judged therein.
- This privilege was also enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1689, by which the Parliament of England definitively established the principle of a constitutional monarchy.
- In the 1884 case of ‘Bradlaugh v. Gosset’, then Chief Justice Lord Coleridge of the House of Lords observed that “What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be inquired into in a court of law.”
Restrictions on Parliamentary Privilege
- Article 121 of the Indian Constitution prohibits any discussion in Parliament regarding the “conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of the Judge.”
-Source: The Hindu
