Bribe for vote: SC to decide if MLAs entitled to immunity

New Delhi, September 28

Can a lawmaker be prosecuted for taking bribes for voting in the House? A five-Judge Constitution Bench led by Justice Abdul Nazeer on Wednesday decided to consider on November 15 if Article 194(1) and 105(2) of the Constitution granted immunity to MLAs and MPs from prosecution for taking or giving bribes to vote in the House.

As the Bench noted that the issue was covered by the ruling of a Constitution Bench in PV Narasimha Rao’s case in which it was held that a lawmaker was immune to prosecution even if he or she took money to vote on the floor of the House, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that it was a 3:2 verdict by a Bench of the same strength i.e. a five-judge Bench.

“The question is… is it the act (of giving or taking bribes) within the House or the entire scope of the act has to be considered… immunity is there for the entire act or not,” noted the Bench, which also included Justice BR Gavai, Justice AS Bopanna, Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice BV Nagarathna.

A three-judge Bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had on March 7, 2019, referred the question to a larger Bench, saying it involved important questions of law.

The 1998 verdict in PV Narasimha Rao’s case (popularly known as JMM MPs’ bribery case) was by a five-judge Bench. Another five-judge Bench of the court had in 2007 ruled in Raja Rampal’s case that those who took money to ask questions in Parliament were liable to be expelled from the House permanently. As the 1998 and 2007 verdicts appear to be contradictory to each other, the present issue might ultimately go to a seven-judge Bench.

Sita Soren, who was an MLA in the Jharkhand Assembly, is being prosecuted by the CBI for allegedly taking bribes for voting in the 2012 Rajya Sabha poll. She had been accused of receiving bribes from a Rajya Sabha candidate for casting her vote in his favour, but instead cast her vote in favour of another candidate.

Her father-in-law and JMM leader Shibu Soren was saved by the 1998 Constitution Bench verdict wherein the top court ruled that MPs who took money and voted in favour of Rao’s government were immune to prosecution. It had, however, ruled that those who gave the bribe to JMM MPs were not immune to prosecution.

According to Article 105(2), “No MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any panel thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, votes or proceedings.” Petitioner Sita Soren has claimed protection under Article 194(2), which is identical to Article 105(2), and applies to MLAs.

Past precedent & what the law says

• Article 105(2) says “no MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote in Parliament”
• JMM’s Shibu Soren was saved by the 1998 Constitution Bench verdict wherein the SC ruled that MPs who took money to vote in favour of Narasimha Rao govt were immune from prosecution
• Sita Soren, who was a Jharkhand MLA, is being prosecuted by CBI for allegedly taking a bribe for voting in the 2012 RS poll

Won’t stay Gujarat IPS officer’s dismissal

Terming it an interim order, the SC declined to interfere with the Delhi HC’s order refusing to stay the Centre’s decision to dismiss Gujarat IPS officer Satish Chandra Verma on August 30, a month before his superannuation. He had assisted the SIT in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case.

Pleas against DeMo to be heard on Oct 12

Six years after the Centre demonetised Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes, the SC on Wednesday wondered if it would be an academic exercise to entertain pleas challenging the decision. It posted the matter for hearing on October 12. There are 58 petitions in the case.