The Supreme Court on March 4 ruled that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) cannot claim any immunity from prosecution for accepting bribes to cast a vote or make a speech in the House in a particular fashion.
Key points
- Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee.
- Article 194(2) grants protection to MLAs.
- A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) unanimously overruled its 1998 judgment in P.V Narasimha Rao v. State and allowed law enforcement agencies to initiate prosecution against legislators in bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act).
- While elaborating upon the purpose of Articles 105 and 194, the Chief Justice pointed out that the assertion of any privilege will be governed by a two-fold test — first, the privilege claimed has to be tethered to the collective functioning of the House and second, its necessity must bear a functional relationship to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.
- Accordingly, it was held that constitutional immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with a vote or speech in the legislature fails to fulfill such a test.
- The Court also clarified that the principles enunciated by the verdict regarding legislative privileges will apply equally to elections to the Rajya Sabha and to appoint the President and Vice-President of the country.
- The court overruled the observations in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006), which held that elections to the Rajya Sabha are not proceedings of the legislature but a mere exercise of franchise and therefore fall outside the ambit of parliamentary privileges under Article 194.
