Scribd
Upload
39 views

Case analysis

Uploaded by

Divya Skater
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
39 views

Case analysis

Uploaded by

Divya Skater
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Case analysis for the monthly newsletter

Case Name: SITA SOREN V UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2024 INSC 161 (4th march 2024)

Case Number: Crl.A. 451/2019

Executive summary

Legislative Immunity for Lawmakers Facing Bribery Charges was the question in this case and a
seven-Judge Bench unanimously held that a lawmaker does not enjoy immunity under Articles
105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution against bribery.

Background

1. In 2012, Sita Soren a member of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) was been bribed by and
Independent Rajya Sabha member to cast her vote to him in the upcoming election. Whereas,
the open ballot system in the election allowed her to vote member from JMM. Soren
ultimately approached High Court of Jharkhand in this regards and seeked the court to quash
the criminal charges against her under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 referring to the
previous Supreme Courts Judgment in P.V Narshimha Rao v state, which held that the
lawmakers enjoyed the provisions of immunity of speeches and votes in parliament under
105(2). The High Court of Jharkhand rejected her plea, and the matter was before the
Supreme Court.

Case Evaluation

Article 105(2) of the Constitution stipulates that no Member of Parliament shall be held liable for
anything said, or for any vote cast in the Parliament.
Article 194(2) extends this privilege to members of state legislatures.
Legal Issues Raised
1. Does the Article 194(2) of the constitution permits immunity to the members of the legislative
assembly to accept the offer of bribes in contrast to their legislative duties?
2. Should the judgment or the precedent decided in the case of P.V Narshimha Rao v State be
reconsidered?
3. Does accepting a bribe fall under Article 194(2) as an activity "in respect of" votes or speech?

Petitioner Arguments:

1. Sita Soren was protected under Article 194(2), according to her counsel, because the alleged
act of bribery was unambiguously related to her legislative job of voting in the Rajya Sabha
elections.
2. The argument that immunity covers activities related to speech and voting in the House was
based on the majority ruling in PV Narasimha Rao v State
3. It was argued that overturning the precedent would erode lawmakers' independence and erode
democratic procedures.

4. It was claimed that immunity was necessary to shield lawmakers from intimidation by the
executive branch or political rivals.

Respondents Arguments:

1. The bribery cannot be contended and protected under the guise of parliamentary rights
because it is also an undermined public trust consolidated together on the members and of
democracy.

2. The learned concil defended stating that parliamentary rights is available with an intention to
protect the functions of the state and not the criminal offences like bribery.
3. The council also exclaimed that the case of P.V Narashima Rao has been paradoxical
interpretation of the constitution allowing legislature to misuse the privileges and denying others
rights.

Judgement :

a. Ratio Decidendi

The purpose of parliamentary privileges under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) is to guarantee the
efficient and free operation of legislative procedures.Since bribery is illegal and not a valid
legislative purpose, it is not protected by legislative privilege. Only actions "in respect of" speech
and voting are immune under Article 194(2); which is connected to legislative
process.Accepting a bribe is criminal offence and is not protected by the privilages .

b. Obiter Dicta
The Court noted that the precedent in PV Narasimha Rao weakened democratic norms and
allowed corruption by distorting the purpose of parliamentary privilege. Judicial intervention is
necessary to uphold constitutional integrity.

c. Guidlines

Articles 105(2) and 194(2) do not grant immunity to legislators for bribery or other criminal
offenses. Legislative privilege is limited to legislative discussion and decision-making.
Irrespective of parliamentary privileges, courts possess the concurrent jurisdiction to bring
criminal charges against parliamentarians.

Conclusion and Comment:

The judgement gives the insights about the Jurisprudence of the constitution holding a dynamic
tilt and explaining the Meaning of Article 105(2) and 194(2) in a comprehensive form not
allowing bribe to be a part of parliamentary privileges also overtuning the other public probity
and accountability. The judgement strengthen the judicial structure as well as constitution in a
very deliberately manner and allows only the legal rights under the constitution to all maintain
the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
References:

Case laws :

1. P V Narshimha Rao v state (CBI/SPE) 1998 SCR 870

2. Raja Ram Pal v Hon'ble speaker of Lok Sabha (2007) 3 SCC 184

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy