NEW DELHI: In a monumental ruling, the Supreme Court of India on Monday stated that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) can not protect themselves from prosecution when confronted with fees of bribery regarding votes or speeches throughout the legislative our bodies.
SC Overturns Ruling In 1998 Narasimha Rao Case
A seven-judge Constitution bench, with resounding unanimity, overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment, a case that had hitherto prolonged immunity to lawmakers from bribery fees associated to parliamentary voting. “Bribery isn’t protected by parliamentary privileges. The interpretation of the 1998 verdict contradicts Constitutional Articles 105 and 194,” declared the bench, emphasizing the pivotal position of integrity in public workplace.
Seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court guidelines that an MP or MLA cannot declare immunity from prosecution on a cost of bribery in reference to the vote/speech within the Parliament/ Legislative Assembly.
Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench in its unanimous view overruled… pic.twitter.com/xJ4MRWvpoO
— ANI (@ANI) March 4, 2024
Parliamentary Privileges Revisited: Upholding Integrity In Governance
The apex courtroom vehemently rejected the notion that accepting bribes by legislators constitutes a privilege, asserting that such actions undermine the moral cloth of public service. “Granting unconnected privileges would breed a class exempt from the rule of law,” it admonished, underscoring the indispensable nature of parliamentary privileges for the efficient functioning of legislative our bodies.
Supreme Court says we disagree with the judgment in PV Narasimha and the judgment in PV Narasimha which grants immunity to legislators for allegedly bribery for casting a vote or speech has “wide ramifications and overruled”.
— ANI (@ANI) March 4, 2024
Reaffirming the sanctity of Constitutional provisions, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of parliamentary privilege to embody not solely collective legislative features but additionally electoral processes equivalent to Rajya Sabha elections and presidential appointments. The interpretation of the PV Narasimha judgment was deemed antithetical to the Constitutional ethos, making a paradoxical situation the place legislators loved immunity for illicit conduct.
Legal Clarity: Legislators To Be Held Accountable
Addressing the core difficulty of accountability, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasised that the offence of bribery is cemented upon the acceptance of unlawful gratification, regardless of subsequent legislative actions. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay concurred, affirming that legislators participating in corrupt practices can be topic to prosecution with none particular remedy.
Preserving Democratic Integrity: Upholding The Spirit Of Justice
The ramifications of this verdict lengthen far past authorized corridors, resonating profoundly throughout the democratic framework of India. By dismantling the protect of immunity, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the precept that integrity and accountability are paramount in sustaining parliamentary democracy.
Following exhaustive deliberations, a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and 6 different esteemed justices reserved its order in October, recognizing the gravity of the problems at hand. The referral to a bigger seven-judge bench underscored the importance of the matter, signalling a watershed second within the ethical cloth of the nation’s polity.
Constitutional Mandate: Ensuring Freedom With Responsibility
In elucidating the aim behind Article 105(2) and Article 194(2), the highest courtroom emphasised the crucial of fostering an surroundings the place elected representatives can discharge their duties with autonomy and accountability, free from the spectre of undue affect or corruption.
