New Delhi: The Central government on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to set aside the precedential value of a 1998 judgment that had allowed MPs a clean immunity after taking bribes to vote or deliver speeches on the floor of the House, and Emphasized that any act of bribery can happen outside the legislature. The Houses can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
While requesting that the 25-year-old judgment in the PV Narasimha Rao vs State (CBI) case be declared “per curiam” (rendered in disregard of a statute), the Center also proposed that an in-house committee be formed. Coined as “speech and vote monitoring”, it could be a meaningful alternative to judicially mandated guidelines that a seven-judge Constitution bench could consider.
As the bench reserved its verdict on the veracity of the 1998 judgment, the Center said the dispute could be resolved by the top court, adding that the Narasimha Rao judgment was “per statutory” as it took into account the statutory scheme. Has failed to keep up. PC Act, which criminalizes the act of bribery when outside the legislative houses.
“Instead of declaring Rao not a good law, this court may have the option of saying that it is per curiam because it does not take into account the statutory scheme of the PC Act… when everything happens outside the House There is no question of privilege being claimed or immunity being established as a defence, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjay Y Chandrachud.
Mehta emphasized that the bench should confine itself to the limited point of declaring that whenever the issue of taking bribe by a member of Parliament or state legislatures comes up, the 1998 judgment should not be overruled by any other court. Should not be considered as an example. There was no need to delve into the larger issue of the immunity given to lawmakers under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution. Article 105(2) states that no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or voted in Parliament or any committee thereof. A related provision granting immunity to members of state legislatures is contained under Article 194(2).
Attorney General R Venkataraman more strongly urged the court to refrain from issuing any “flexible norms” in this case, arguing that it is important to lay down enforceable norms keeping in mind the object and purpose of constitutional protection. The authority should rest with the Parliament and State Legislatures. An MLA is expected to perform various roles inside and outside the House.
“It can be said that conduct that is otherwise unlawful will not generally be protected against liabilities. However, as a matter of prudence and without sacrificing moral and ethical standards in the political arena, it would be worthwhile to propose an in-house committee of the respective legislatures to monitor ‘speech and vote’, whose recommendations could be the basis for all Are. Liabilities,” Venkataramani told the bench, also comprising justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundaresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Mishra.
The A-G described the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution as “parallel”. The Tenth Schedule deals with the anti-defection law, which empowers the Speaker to decide on such complaints and act as a tribunal to rule on the disqualification of an MLA.
“While the desirability of delineating and setting down the principles which may govern the scope and application of the ‘speech and vote’ clause, is not to be doubted, the matter of laying down enforceable norms, may warrant a wide debate and legislative interventions, including intervention by state legislatures, having regard to the multitude of functions of legislative bodies, discharged both directly and through their committee proceedings,” Venkataramani added.
Even as the A-G requested the court to keep in mind a spectrum of relevant factors, including overlapping of legislative and political activities of a legislator, he clarified that anything that is clearly proscribed by statute cannot have a refuge under Articles 105 and 194. “I don’t think any responsible government or public authority can take that stand,” he added.
After hearing the two sides, the Constitution bench on Thursday reserved its verdict on the correctness of the 1998 decision by a five-judge bench, which by 3-2 majority, had held that MPs and MLAs accepting bribes and voting or asking questions in the House would enjoy immunity under the Constitution.
The bench was dealing with the issue of whether immunity granted to lawmakers is available if there was criminality attached to their acts. The Centre’s statement made it clear that it would not press for any parliamentary privilege in cases of bribery.
On September 20, the top court decided to have a relook at the 1998 judgment in the Narasimha Rao case after the judgment was relied upon by a former member of the Jharkhand assembly, Sita Soren of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), who allegedly accepted a bribe from an independent candidate for voting in the Rajya Sabha elections of 2012. The 1998 judgment, curiously, protected those lawmakers who vote or ask questions after receiving bribes, but it did not protect those who received bribes but did not keep their end of the bargain.
On Wednesday, as the seven-judge bench commenced the hearing, S-G Mehta stood up to convey the Centre’s stand. While it is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, Mehta said, the immunity available to MPs and MLAs under the Constitution cannot shield them from prosecution under the PC Act if they accept bribes to vote or ask questions on the floor of the House.
Citing Section 7 of the PC Act, the S-G had on Wednesday added the offence of bribery can be said to be complete independent of, and without reference to, “anything said or any vote given” in Parliament or state legislature, no question of any legislative privilege being attracted can arise if the member is prosecuted for taking a bribe for the speech or vote. Section 7 prescribes punishment up to seven years in jail.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Sita Soren, opposed a review of the 1998 judgment, contending that issues of constitutional privileges and immunities are not in derogation to the rule of law but a distinct pillar in constitutional edifice to protect lawmakers who are also prone to political persecution.
Senior advocate PS Patwalia, who appeared in the matter as amicus curiae, also supported the view that there must not be any immunity for a legislator accepting bribes. Senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing intervenor in the case, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, echoed Patwalia’s view.
The 1998 judgment came in the backdrop of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha bribery scandal that rocked the Congress government, headed by PV Narasimha Rao in 1993. The Narasimha Rao government allegedly bribed several parliamentarians across parties to defeat a no-confidence motion.
The top court, in a 3-2 verdict, decided in 1998 that MPs who took the bribe and voted in the House could not be prosecuted as they enjoyed immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. However, such protection will not be available to an MP who received a bribe but abstained from voting or making a speech, the judgment added. It was this anomaly that led the court to clear prosecution of then MP Ajit Singh, who allegedly took a bribe but abstained from voting.
