In a seminal legal development, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision rendered by a distinguished seven-judge Bench, has fundamentally reevaluated the prevailing legal landscape surrounding legislative immunity from bribery charges. The ruling, which comes as a meticulous examination of the P.V. Narasimha Rao versus State (1998) case, marks a profound shift in the interpretation of Article 105(2) of the Constitution, dealing with parliamentary privileges and immunities.
The Narasimha Rao case, which bestowed parliamentary immunity upon lawmakers for actions related to their legislative duties, stood overturned on Monday by the Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, alongside Justices A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh, P.S. Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra. The unanimous decision articulated the view that the precedent set by Narasimha Rao had profound implications for public interest, the integrity of public life, and the democratic fabric of the parliamentary system, necessitating its reconsideration.
Central to the judicial scrutiny was the interpretation of Article 105(2), which, until this landmark judgment, was construed to provide legislators with immunity from prosecution for acts integral to their parliamentary functions. The legal reassessment was prompted by a 2012 election scenario in Jharkhand, involving bribery allegations against Sita Soren, a member of the legislative assembly. The subsequent legal entanglements sparked doubts about the legitimacy of the majority opinion in the Narasimha Rao case.
The Bench elucidated that parliamentary privileges should have a direct nexus to the effective functioning of the legislature and should not extend beyond matters integrally linked to legislative duties. The categorical ruling affirmed that legislators cannot claim immunity for actions divorced from their parliamentary obligations.
Crucially, the Bench clarified that Article 105(2) does not confer immunity against bribery charges, rejecting the prior notion that bribery must be tied to the actual performance of a parliamentary act. The majority opinion in Narasimha Rao had erroneously linked the offense of bribery to the execution of a specific act, a position explicitly contradicted by the recent legal pronouncement.
In a legal context, the judgment underscored the corrosive impact of corruption and bribery on the foundational principles of Indian parliamentary democracy. It emphasized that such practices undermine the aspirational and deliberative ideals enshrined in the Constitution, leading to a polity that deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy.
The crux of the decision lies in the Bench's delineation of a two-fold test for individual legislators seeking to assert parliamentary privilege. First, the privilege claimed must be intricately linked 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.
The Bench further established two fold test for determining instances where legislators may be entitled to immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2).
Immunity will apply if there is a collective function of the legislature that is involved
The act in question must be essentially related to the discharging of the function of the house.
In addition, the Bench conclusively affirmed that these criteria extend to elections of members of the legislature, Rajya Sabha, President, and Vice-President.
This legal elucidation, underlining the indispensable connection between parliamentary privileges and the effective functioning of the legislature, sets a new paradigm in the understanding of legislative immunity. As the legal community grapples with the implications of this landmark judgment, it stands as a testament to the judiciary's commitment to upholding the sanctity of parliamentary processes, probity in public life, and the democratic ideals enshrined in the Constitution.
Read the Judgment here: