The Supreme Court on September 20 referred to a seven-judge bench the question of whether the legal immunity of legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution protects them from being prosecuted in a criminal court for the offence of offering or accepting a bribe.
Key points
- In its 1998 constitution bench ruling in PV Narasimha Rao vs. State, the apex court had held that legislators have immunity against criminal prosecution on bribery charges for any speech or vote in Parliament.
- Article 105(2) states, “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 a nutshell, this provision exempts MPs 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.
- Article 194(2) extends this immunity to MLAs and states.
