Supreme Court ends immunity for MPs, MLAs in bribery cases, reverses 1998 verdict
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK New Delhi, March 4: A 1998 decision that shielded MPs and MLAs from prosecution for accepting bribes…
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, March 4: A 1998 decision that shielded MPs and MLAs from prosecution for accepting bribes to give speeches and cast votes in the legislature was overturned by the Supreme Court on Monday. “Bribery is complete when bribery is accepted,” observed Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
The Chief Justice presided over a seven-member constitution bench that delievered the unanimous verdict.
The Chief Justice of India stated, “We have independently adjudicated on all aspects of the controversy. Do Parliamentarians enjoy immunity? We disagree and overrule the majority on this aspect.”
“Corruption and bribery by members of the legislature erode probity in public life,” he further stated.
Also Read- Delhi FM Atishi presents Rs 76,000 crore budget for FY 2024-25 in Assembly
The 1998 judgement
In the 1998 judgment, a panel of five judges decreed that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) were protected from prosecution for accepting bribes to deliver speeches and vote in the legislature. This immunity was granted under the parliamentary privileges outlined in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution.
Sita Soren bribery case
Notably, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Sita Soren claimed Article 105 immunity in an appeal filed in 2012 after she was charged with receiving a bribe in exchange for a Rajya Sabha vote in that particular year.
However, the appeal was turned down by the Jharkhand High Court and was subsequently taken to the Supreme Court.
In October 2023, the Supreme Court’s seven-judge panel concluded its two-day hearing and reserved its verdict.
Bribery not immune under Article 105: CJI
Chief Justice Chandrachud stated that “bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105” in addition to pronouncing the verdict on Monday.
He additionally remarked that receiving a bribe for “illegal gratification” is not contingent upon whether the vote or speech occurs subsequently.
“The offence is complete when a legislator accepts a bribe,” he added.
