1998 (4) TMI 503 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether by virtue of Article 105 of the Constitution a Member of Parliament can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court? Whether a Member of Parliament is a public servant falling within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986? Held that - Member of Parliament does not enjoy immunity under Article 105(1) or under Article 105(3) of the Constitution from being prosecuted before a criminal court for an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe for the purpose of speaking or by giving his vote in Parliament or in any committees thereof. A member of Parliament is a public servant under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since there is no authority competent to remove a Member of Parliament and to grant sanction for his prosecution under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the court can take cognizance of the offences mentioned in Section 19(1) in the absence of sanction but till provision is made by Parliament in that regard by suitable amendment in the law, the prosecuting agency, before filing a charge-sheet in respect of an offence punishable under Section 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 of the 1988 Act against a Member of Parliament in a criminal court, shall obtain the permission of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the case may be.

Issues Involved:
1. Immunity from prosecution for Members of Parliament under Article 105 of the Constitution.
2. Whether a Member of Parliament is a "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Requirement of sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Immunity from Prosecution for Members of Parliament under Article 105 of the Constitution:

The core question was whether Article 105 of the Constitution provides immunity to Members of Parliament from prosecution for bribery related to their parliamentary activities. Article 105(2) grants immunity to Members of Parliament from liability in court for anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament. The court examined whether this immunity extends to criminal acts such as bribery.

The court concluded that Article 105(2) does not provide immunity from prosecution for bribery. The immunity is intended to protect the freedom of speech and independence of members in parliamentary proceedings, not to shield them from criminal acts. The court distinguished between acts performed in Parliament and criminal acts related to those parliamentary functions. Thus, the immunity does not cover bribery, and Members of Parliament can be prosecuted for accepting bribes.

2. Whether a Member of Parliament is a "Public Servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

The court examined whether Members of Parliament are "public servants" under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The definition of "public servant" in the Act is broader than that in the Indian Penal Code, encompassing any person who holds an office by virtue of which they are authorized or required to perform any public duty.

The court held that Members of Parliament are indeed public servants under the Act. They hold an office and perform public duties, such as law-making and controlling public finances, which are of public interest. Therefore, they fall within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Act, making them subject to its provisions, including those related to corruption.

3. Requirement of Sanction for Prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

The issue was whether a Member of Parliament requires sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 19 requires prior sanction for prosecuting public servants for certain offences under the Act. However, the court noted that there is no authority competent to remove a Member of Parliament, which complicates the sanction requirement.

The court concluded that, in the absence of a competent authority to grant sanction, the requirement does not apply to Members of Parliament. However, to prevent frivolous prosecutions, the court suggested that the prosecuting agency should obtain permission from the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or the Speaker of the Lok Sabha before proceeding with prosecution under the specified sections of the Act. This recommendation aims to balance the need for accountability with the protection of parliamentary independence.

Conclusion:

The court's judgment clarified that Members of Parliament do not enjoy immunity from prosecution for bribery under Article 105 of the Constitution. They are considered public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and can be prosecuted for corruption-related offences. While the requirement of sanction under Section 19 does not apply due to the absence of a competent authority, procedural safeguards were recommended to prevent misuse of the prosecution process.

← Previous Next →