Image Source: Agencies

Can lawmakers claim immunity from prosecution for taking bribes to vote in parliament?
Twenty-five years after a five-judge constitution bench in the PV Narasimha Rao case ruled that the lawmaker was immune from prosecution despite money for voting in Parliament, the Supreme Court on Wednesday sent the case to a seven-judge constitution bench for a retrial. Correctness of the 1998 decision.
"This list of the legal situation shows that the decision taken by Narasimha Rao (in the case) is wrong. The only question is whether we should expect it to arise sometime in the future or whether the law provides... It also should not be ignored that if it also promotes our elected representative's public morality, we should not postpone our decision to some. uncertain day in the future,” said a five-judge bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud.
The prejudice came after senior advocate PS Patwalia, who was appointed amicus curiae to assist the apex court on November 15 last year, said the lawmaker cannot claim immunity from prosecution for accepting bribes to vote or speak in parliament. . "This is too important a matter to leave like this...," Patwalia said and urged the matter to be referred to a larger court.

The court decided to ignore the submissions of Advocate General R Venkataraman and Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the petitioner, who argued that there was no need to delve into the constitutional question as the case at hand did not warrant it.
"This case must stand on its own facts... The prosecution must continue," Venkataramani said, adding that Article 194 of the constitution did not provide protection because the act in question was not related to what was said in the agreement or the votes. . a house
The prejudice came while dealing with important legal issues related to parliamentary privilege under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution, raised by a three-judge bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi on March 7, 2019. JMM legislator Sita Soren's plea seeking protection in line with the Supreme Court's order in the Narasimha Rao case after he was accused of taking bribes during the Rajya Sabha elections.

According to section 105 (2) of the Act, "No member of parliament shall be liable in any court for what he said or gave when voting in parliament or in a committee thereof, and no person shall be liable for the publication of any report. , document , vote or proceeding of or under each House of Parliament."

Petitioner Sita Soren sought protection under Article 194(2) - which is identical to Article 105(2) - and applies to state legislatures. In the PV Narasimha Rao case, a five-judge Constitution Bench in 1998 held that the lawmaker was immune from prosecution even though he took money to vote in parliament.

Interestingly, in Raja Rampal's case in 2007, another five-judge constitution bench ruled that those who took money to raise issues in Parliament could be permanently expelled from Parliament.
The decisions of 1998 and 2007 seem to be contradictory; The question will now be decided by the Constitutional Commission consisting of seven judges.
Sita Soren, who was an MLA in the Jharkhand Assembly, is accused by the CBI of accepting bribes to vote in the Rajya Sabha polls in 2012. He was accused of taking the sting out of a Rajya Sabha candidate when he cast his vote for him but instead voted for another candidate. His father-in-law and JMM leader Shibu Soren spared the 1998 Constitution judgment in which the Supreme Court ruled that MPs who took money and voted for Rao's government were immune from prosecution. However, he ruled that those who bribed JMM MPs were not immune from prosecution.