Sita Soren Vs. Union of India : The Supreme Court holds that bribery is not protected by Parliamentary privileges

The Supreme Court in  Sita Soren Vs Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2019) has overruled P. V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State 1998 4 SCC 626 and held that bribery is not immune under Article 105 (2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194.

FACTS OF THE CASE

An election for two seats of Rajya Sabha was held in Jharkhand on 30^th March, 2012. Smt. Sita Soren was member of Legislative Assembly of Jharkhand. An allegation was made against her that she has accepted bribe to vote in favour of an independent candidate. But at the time of voting  she has voted in favour of candidate set up by her party. Criminal proceedings were initiated against her. She filed petition before the High Court for quashing of criminal proceedings seeking protection under Article 194 (2) of the Constitution relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in P V Narasimha Rao. The High Court refused to quash the proceedings citing that Smt. Soren has not voted in favour of the independent candidate as such the case is not covered under P V Narasimha Rao judgment.

Two judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to the three judge bench. Three judge bench referred the matter to five judge bench. Five judge bench referred the matter to seven judge bench. Finally matter was heard by seven judge bench.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a legislator who receives a bribe to cast a vote in a certain direction or speak about certain issues is protected by parliamentary privilege.

The Supreme Court noted that in a deliberative democracy the aspirations of the people are met by discourse in democratic institutions including Parliament and State Legislature. Parliamentary privileges facilitate free discussion by legislators.

The Supreme Court surveyed the historical development of parliamentary privileges in India. The Supreme Court noted that prior to enactment of the Constitution, members of Legislatures in India did not enjoy such Parliamentary privileges as enjoyed by House of Commons in UK. Members of Parliament did not enjoy any immunity from criminal proceedings.

The Court noted that Article 105 has four clauses. Clause (1) grants freedom of speech in Parliament. The freedom of speech granted under clause (1) is distinct from freedom of speech and expression granted under Article 19 (1) (a).  Clause (2) has two limbs. The first limb states that a member of Parliament shall not be liable before any court in respect of anything said or any vote given. The second limb states that no person shall be liable before any court in respect of the publication by or under the authority or either House of Parliament of any report, paper, vote or proceedings.  Clause (3) states that in respect of  privileges not falling under clause (1) and (2), power, privileges and immunities will be such as defined by law made by Parliament. Till such law is made, they are those enjoyed by Parliament before coming into effect of Section 15 of 44^th Amendment Act.  Before coming into force of Section 15 the power, privileges and immunities were such as enjoyed the House of Commons, its members and committees. Clause (4) extents privileges to all persons who have right to speak in Parliament.  

The Supreme Court observed that the privileges enshrined under Article 105 and Article 194 of the Constitution are of the widest amplitude but to the extent that they serve the aims for which they have been granted. The Framers of the Constitution would not have intended to grant to the legislature those rights which may not serve any purpose for the proper functioning of the House.

The Supreme Court propounded two fold test for determination of privilege of a member of Parliament. Firstly, the privilege claimed has to be tethered to functioning of the House and Secondly, its necessity must bear a functional relationship to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.

Applying the two fold test the Supreme Court held that bribery is not protected under Parliamentary privileges. The Court also noted that Constitution envisions probity in pubic life. Corruption and bribery of members of legislature erode the foundation of Parliamentary Democracy.

The Supreme Court held that prosecution for bribery is not excluded from the jurisdiction of the criminal court merely because it may also be treated by the House as contempt or a breach of its privilege.

The Supreme Court noted that P. V. Narasimha Rao judgment results in paradoxical outcome.  When   a legislator  accepts a bribe and votes in agreed direction he is conferred with immunity. On the other hand when a legislator accepts a bribe and votes independently, he will be prosecuted. The Supreme Court overruled  majority view  in P. V. Narasimha Rao judgment.

____________________________________________________________