2024 (6) TMI 437 - SC - Indian Laws

Prosecution for bribery - Corruption - Doctrine of stare decisis - Whether by virtue of Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution a Member of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, as the case may be, can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court? Doctrine of stare decisis - HELD THAT - The doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law. A larger bench of this Court may reconsider a previous decision in appropriate cases, bearing in mind the tests which have been formulated in the precedents of this Court. The judgment of the majority in PV. NARSIMHA RAO VERSUS STATE (CBI/SPE) 1998 (4) TMI 503 - SUPREME COURT ), which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature who has allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or speaking has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy. There is a grave danger of this Court allowing an error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered. Unlike the House of Commons in the UK, India does not have ancient and undoubted privileges which were vested after a struggle between Parliament and the King. Privileges in pre-independence India were governed by statute in the face of a reluctant colonial government. The statutory privilege transitioned to a constitutional privilege after the commencement of the Constitution - Whether a claim to privilege in a particular case conforms to the parameters of the Constitution is amenable to judicial review. Corruption - Prosecution for bribery - HELD THAT - An individual member of the legislature cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity under Articles 105 and 194 from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with a vote or speech in the legislature. Such a claim to immunity fails to fulfil the twofold test that the claim is tethered to the collective functioning of the House and that it is necessary to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator - Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution seek to sustain an environment in which debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature. This purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner because of an act of bribery. Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast. The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee - Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life. The interpretation which has been placed on the issue in question in the judgment of the majority in PV Narasimha Rao results in a paradoxical outcome where a legislator is conferred with immunity when they accept a bribe and follow through by voting in the agreed direction. On the other hand, a legislator who agrees to accept a bribe, but eventually decides to vote independently will be prosecuted. Such an interpretation is contrary to the text and purpose of Articles 105 and 194. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao violates the principle of stare decisis.
2. The extent and nature of parliamentary privilege in India.
3. Whether bribery is protected by parliamentary privilege.
4. The international position on bribery vis-à-vis parliamentary privileges.
5. Whether elections to the Rajya Sabha are within the remit of Article 194(2).

Summary:

1. Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao does not violate the principle of stare decisis:
The judgment begins by addressing the principle of stare decisis and the conditions under which a previous decision can be reconsidered. It states that the doctrine is not inflexible and that a larger bench can revisit earlier decisions when they have wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy. The judgment of the majority in PV Narasimha Rao was found to have significant errors, and reconsidering it does not violate the principle of stare decisis.

2. The extent and nature of parliamentary privilege in India:
The judgment elaborates on the history and purpose of parliamentary privilege in India, tracing its evolution from colonial times to its current constitutional status. It emphasizes that parliamentary privilege is meant to facilitate the functioning of the House and protect the freedom of speech and vote of its members. However, it is not absolute and must be tethered to the collective functioning of the House and necessary for the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.

3. Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege:
The judgment holds that bribery cannot be considered as "in respect of" anything said or any vote given in the House. It states that the offence of bribery is complete upon the acceptance of money or agreement to accept money, and is not dependent on the performance of the illegal promise. Therefore, members of Parliament or the Legislature cannot claim immunity from prosecution for bribery under Articles 105(2) and 194(2).

4. International position on bribery vis-à-vis privileges:
The judgment examines the position of parliamentary privileges in the UK, USA, Canada, and Australia. It notes that in these jurisdictions, bribery by legislators is not protected by parliamentary privilege and can be prosecuted under criminal law. The judgment refers to several cases and reports from these countries to support its conclusion that bribery is a criminal offence and not a matter of parliamentary privilege.

5. Elections to the Rajya Sabha are within the remit of Article 194(2):
The judgment clarifies that voting in the Rajya Sabha elections falls within the ambit of Article 194(2). It states that the term "Legislature" in Article 194(2) includes parliamentary processes that do not necessarily take place on the floor of the House or involve law-making in the strict sense. Therefore, the votes cast by elected members of the state legislative assembly in Rajya Sabha elections are protected by parliamentary privilege.

Conclusion:
The judgment concludes by overruling the majority opinion in PV Narasimha Rao and holding that members of Parliament or the Legislature cannot claim immunity from prosecution for bribery under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). It emphasizes that bribery is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast and that corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life. The judgment also clarifies that elections to the Rajya Sabha are within the remit of Article 194(2).