7 judges to hear 'cash for votes'

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine the correctness of a 25-year-old decision by a five-judge bench which held that members of Parliament accepting bribes and voting or asking questions in the House will enjoy immunity available to legislators under the Constitution.

- Abraham Thomas

The court reasoned that the object of having such immunity can never be to set apart legislators as persons wielding higher privileges in claiming immunity from the application of criminal law that common citizens do not possess. Instead, the immunity is to institutionalise their right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution in an atmosphere of freedom without fear of consequences that may follow.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud agreed to have a relook at the 1998 Constitution bench decision in PV Narasimha Rao v State after the decision 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.

She sought immunity from being prosecuted for the offence citing Article 194(2) of Constitution which grants immunity to MLAs for any speech made or vote cast in the House. The provision states, “No member of the legislature of a state shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the legislature or any committee thereof.” The corresponding provision giving immunity to members of Parliament is contained in Article 105(2).

In March 2019, a three-judge bench referred the appeal to a five-judge bench as it involved the interpretation of the 1998 decision.

Dealing with the appeal, the CJI-headed bench said, “Prima facie at this stage, we are of the considered view that the correctness of the majority view taken in PV Narasimha Rao case should be considered by a larger bench of seven judges.”