Can MPs, MLAs Be Prosecuted For Taking Bribe For Speech, Vote In House? SC Verdict Today

The Supreme Court on Monday will pronounce its judgment on whether Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) enjoy immunity from being prosecuted for taking bribes to make a speech or cast a vote in legislature.

In October 2023, a seven-judge Constitutional bench had reserved its verdict after hearing arguments in the case.

Centre had submitted in the court that bribery can never be a subject matter of immunity and a parliamentary privilege is not meant to place a lawmaker above law. The top court had said it will examine if the immunity granted to lawmakers from prosecution extends to them even if criminality is attached to their actions.

ALSO READ | Indira Gandhi's Win To Chandigarh Mayor Polls: How Judiciary Stepped In To Uphold Sanctity Of Elections

In 1988, a five judge bench of the top court had delivered a verdict which held that MPs and MLAs were immune from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in the legislature.

The question of immunity to lawmakers came under the Supreme Court's scrutiny in 2019, when a bench headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi was hearing a plea filed by Sita Soren, JMM MLA from Jama.

Sita Soren allegedly took bribes to vote for a candidate in the Rajya Sabha polls in 2012. She has argued that she enjoys immunity from prosecution. Earlier, her father-in-law Shibu Soren enjoyed the perks of immunity to lawmakers when he was accused in the JMM bribery scam.

A five-judge bench of the apex court in 1998 gave a verdict in the JMM bribery case by which MPs and MLAs were given immunity from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in legislature.

The seven-judge bench is reconsidering this judgement delivered by a five-judge bench.

What WasThe Case That Led To The 1998 Verdict?

In 1991, the Congress won Lok Sabha elections and formed the government with P.V. Narasimha Rao as the Prime Minister. In July 1993, Narasimha Rao's government faced a no-confidence motion, which it narrowly defeated by a margin of 14 votes.

Following this, a complaint was filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), alleging that some Parliamentarians were bribed to vote against a no-confidence motion in favour of the Congress government.

The accused MPs said that they enjoyed immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution for any votes cast by them in Parliament and any actions associated with casting such votes. They further contended that as MPs do not hold public office, they cannot be brought under PCA.

In 1998, by a 3:2 majority the Supreme Court ruled that MPs are immune from prosecution not just for votes cast by them in Parliament, but also for any acts associated with the casting of such votes.  

It now meant that if an MP was bribed to vote in a certain way in Parliament, then the act of receiving this bribe would be protected by Article 105(2), and that they did not come under the scope of the PCA. The top court will deliver its verdict on the correctness of this judgment tomorrow.