India: Bribery Not Protected By Parliamentary Privileges: Supreme Court

On March 04, 2024, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court held, in Sita Soren vs. Union of India¹, that members of the Parliament and state legislatures do not enjoy parliamentary immunity for acts of bribery, overruling the 3:2 Constitution Bench decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. State in 1998.

Overview of relevant facts

• Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution of India grants members of the Parliament and state legislatures immunity from any proceeding in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by such member in the Parliament or the state legislature or any of the committees of the Parliament or the state legislature.

• Based thereon, the Supreme Court had, in P.V. Narasimha Rao, dismissed the bribery charges against certain members of Parliament belonging to the JMM party, who were accused of taking bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion against the then P V Narasimha Rao government in 1993.

• Importantly, it was held that prosecution could continue against one member who had accepted the bribe to vote against but abstained on the day of the vote, since the immunity was operative only insofar as it pertained to something said or a vote given, and abstaining from voting did not qualify for such immunity. It was reasoned that the actions for which immunity was sought should have a nexus with something said or vote given, and non-compliance with the quid pro quo upon which the bribe was accepted would result in the action of bribe-taking no longer having such nexus with the vote.

• The present case before the Supreme Court, Sita Soren vs. Union of India, arose from an appeal filed against an order of the Jharkhand High Court, which had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against Sita Soren, a member of the JMM, who was accused of accepting a bribe to vote for a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha Elections of 2012.

Analysis and ruling

• The Supreme Court, in the present case, held that the acceptance of bribe itself was an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and actions thereafter would not have any bearing on the application of parliamentary immunity.

• The Supreme Court noted that the P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment resulted in a "paradoxical outcome", whereby a legislator accepting a bribe could enjoy immunity; however, the immunity may not apply if the legislator did not act in accordance with the terms on which the bribe was accepted (for instance, by abstaining). Overruling this position, the Supreme Court held that a legislator would be liable to be prosecuted regardless of whether they voted as per terms of the bribe received.

• The Supreme Court distinguished the Indian legislature from the House of Commons in the UK, which, the Supreme Court noted, had "ancient and undoubted privileges" vested after a struggle between the parliament and the King.

• It was held that, in India, parliamentary immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) was granted solely where the same is tethered to the collective function of the legislature and if the act is essentially related to the discharging essential duties of the legislator, and granting immunity for receipt of bribes did not fulfil the requirements of this test.

• The Supreme Court noted that "corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian parliamentary democracy" and could not be allowed.

• Importantly, the Supreme Court reiterated that the offence of bribery is complete on the acceptance of the money or on the agreement to accept money being concluded, and the offence is not contingent on the performance of the promise. In this regard, the Supreme Court explicitly disagreed with the ruling in P.V. Narasimha Rao, where those who had voted as agreed were covered by immunity but those who did not vote were not.

• Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that a member engaging in bribery commits a crime that is unrelated and not essential to the casting of their vote or the ability to make a decision on their vote and, therefore, is not "in respect of" the function of the member to speak or vote, as required for the immunity granted under Articles 105(2) and 194(2).