In the current article, I am going to write about the biggest offence of the lawmakers. Lawmakers have been positioned to maintain the law and order of the country and protect the citizens of the country from different mishappenings or injustices. They also help people to change their perspectives amongst each other. They are creating offences in the country that are the biggest shame for our country’s image. Many case laws talk about this issue, which I will discuss in this article.
The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on March 4, 2024, declared that lawmakers cannot claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for acts of bribery. Overturning the controversial 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao ruling, the Court ruled that immunity protects legislators’ speech and votes strictly within parliamentary duties and does not extend to criminal acts like bribery. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and the seven-judge Bench emphasized that accepting a bribe constitutes a standalone offence, irrespective of whether the legislator follows through on the agreement. The judgment arose from the Sita Soren bribery case and set a two-part test for determining immunity, reinforcing accountability and public trust in democratic processes. This decision marks a critical step in balancing parliamentary privileges with the imperative to uphold integrity and combat corruption.
The JMM bribery case highlighted a dark chapter in India’s political history, where then-Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and others were accused of bribing MPs from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) to support a minority government in the 1993 Lok Sabha vote. The case raised crucial questions about the extent of parliamentary immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that immunity under Article 105(2) protects MPs only for actions within Parliament and does not extend to criminal acts like bribery conducted outside its precincts. This landmark judgment emphasized that parliamentary privileges cannot shield lawmakers from accountability for corruption, reaffirming the judiciary’s role in maintaining legislative integrity and public trust in democracy.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Sita Soren v. Union of India clarified that lawmakers cannot use immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution to shield themselves from prosecution for bribery. This landmark ruling arose from a case where Sita Soren, a Jharkhand MLA, was accused of accepting a bribe to influence her vote in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. The Court held that bribery is not a legitimate legislative act and falls outside the scope of parliamentary privilege, rejecting her claim of immunity. By overturning the earlier precedent set in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998), which had controversially extended immunity to MPs involved in bribery if they voted as promised, the Court emphasized accountability and integrity in public office. This judgment reinforces that constitutional protections like Articles 105(2) and 194(2) are meant to facilitate legislative duties, not to cover criminal acts such as bribery. It aligns with global judicial trends that limit legislative immunity in cases of corruption and underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic values and curbing misuse of power.
The issue of parliamentary immunity has long been a contentious matter in Indian legal and political discourse. This debate traces back to the 1998 Supreme Court judgment in the Narasimha Rao vs CBI case, commonly known as the JMM bribery case. A five-judge bench, by a 3:2 majority, held that lawmakers enjoyed immunity from criminal prosecution for speeches made and votes cast in the House under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution. However, this broad interpretation of parliamentary privilege came under scrutiny in subsequent cases. One such case was that of Sita Soren, a Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) legislator accused of accepting a bribe during the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. Soren allegedly took money to vote for an independent candidate, R.K. Agarwal but instead voted for her party’s nominee, Sanjiv Kumar. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) launched a probe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, leading to Soren seeking protection under Article 194(2). She argued that her vote and actions were covered by legislative privilege. However, the Jharkhand High Court, in February 2014, refused to quash the case, prompting her to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court was faced with conflicting precedents on parliamentary immunity. While the 1998 ruling in the JMM bribery case granted broad immunity even in instances involving bribes, a later five-judge bench in the “cash-for-query” scam held that legislators accepting money to ask questions in Parliament could be expelled. Recognizing the gravity of the issue, a three-judge bench led by then-Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi in 2019 referred Soren’s case to a larger bench, calling it a matter of “substantial public importance” with “wide ramifications.” In September 2023, a five-judge bench further referred the case to a seven-judge Constitution Bench to reconsider the 1998 verdict. On October 5, 2023, the seven-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reserved its judgment, and on March 4, 2024, the Court delivered its landmark ruling.
The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the 1998 judgment, holding that lawmakers cannot claim immunity for bribery under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). It clarified that parliamentary privileges are meant to ensure free speech and unhampered legislative functioning, not to shield criminal acts. The Court observed that bribery constitutes a crime the moment the bribe is accepted, irrespective of whether the act promised is carried out. The judgment introduced a two-part test for immunity: the act must relate to the collective functions of the legislature and directly connect to a legislator’s duties. Bribery failed this test. The Court underscored that constitutional provisions must balance immunity with accountability to maintain public trust and legislative integrity. This ruling closes the chapter on conflicting interpretations and reinforces that parliamentary privileges cannot be misused to justify corruption, marking a significant step in upholding democratic principles and the rule of law.
The issue of parliamentary immunity has long been a contentious matter in Indian legal and political discourse. This debate traces back to the 1998 Supreme Court judgment in the Narasimha Rao vs CBI case, commonly known as the JMM bribery case. A five-judge bench, by a 3:2 majority, held that lawmakers enjoyed immunity from criminal prosecution for speeches made and votes cast in the House under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution. However, this broad interpretation of parliamentary privilege came under scrutiny in subsequent cases. One such case was that of Sita Soren, a Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) legislator accused of accepting a bribe during the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. Soren allegedly took money to vote for an independent candidate, R.K. Agarwal but instead voted for her party’s nominee, Sanjiv Kumar. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) launched a probe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, leading to Soren seeking protection under Article 194(2). She argued that her vote and actions were covered by legislative privilege. However, the Jharkhand High Court, in February 2014, refused to quash the case, prompting her to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court was faced with conflicting precedents on parliamentary immunity. While the 1998 ruling in the JMM bribery case granted broad immunity even in instances involving bribes, a later five-judge bench in the “cash-for-query” scam held that legislators accepting money to ask questions in Parliament could be expelled. Recognizing the gravity of the issue, a three-judge bench led by then-Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi in 2019 referred Soren’s case to a larger bench, calling it a matter of “substantial public importance” with “wide ramifications.” In September 2023, a five-judge bench further referred the case to a seven-judge Constitution Bench to reconsider the 1998 verdict. On October 5, 2023, the seven-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, reserved its judgment, and on March 4, 2024, the Court delivered its landmark ruling.
The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the 1998 judgment, holding that lawmakers cannot claim immunity for bribery under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). It clarified that parliamentary privileges are meant to ensure free speech and unhampered legislative functioning, not to shield criminal acts. The Court observed that bribery constitutes a crime the moment the bribe is accepted, irrespective of whether the act promised is carried out. The judgment introduced a two-part test for immunity: the act must relate to collective functions of the legislature and directly connect to a legislator’s duties. Bribery failed this test. The Court underscored that constitutional provisions must balance immunity with accountability to maintain public trust and legislative integrity. This ruling closes the chapter on conflicting interpretations and reinforces that parliamentary privileges cannot be misused to justify corruption, marking a significant step in upholding democratic principles and the rule of law.
China has significantly bolstered its military infrastructure in areas bordering India, constructing at least ten new airbases in regions such as Ladakh, Uttarakhand, and Arunachal Pradesh. In response, India has ramped up its infrastructure development along the border to enhance troop mobility and strengthen defense capabilities. The Indian government has focused on constructing 90 strategically significant projects, including roads, bridges, and tunnels, along the tense border. To facilitate the swift deployment of troops and artillery, India has also invested in building an all-weather strategic road network. The expected budget for improving connectivity in these critical regions is approximately ₹1.4 trillion.
On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court made an important decision, ruling that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) cannot use Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution to shield themselves from bribery charges. This unanimous verdict was delivered by a seven-judge Constitution Bench, with Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud wrote the detailed 135-page judgment.
This ruling overturned the 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao case, which had allowed lawmakers to claim immunity for actions like voting in the House. The Supreme Court made it clear that this protection does not cover instances of bribery.
The judgment introduced a two-fold test to decide when lawmakers can claim immunity:
Bribery fails this test and thus does not qualify for immunity.
The case involved Sita Soren, a Jharkhand MLA accused of taking a bribe to vote for an independent candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections but voting for her own party instead. Her lawyer argued the Court could not reconsider the 1998 ruling due to the principle of stare decisis (adhering to precedents). However, the Court stated that larger benches could revisit decisions by smaller benches to ensure justice and legal development.
The Court emphasized that immunity is meant to allow free discussions in Parliament and Assemblies. It protects members’ speech and votes but has limits. Immunity applies only when actions are essential for the House’s functioning. Personal actions unrelated to the House’s work, like bribery, are not protected.
The Court clarified that bribery is a crime as soon as a bribe is accepted, regardless of whether the promised action is carried out. This corrects the earlier ruling that protected MPs who fulfilled bribery agreements but not those who didn’t.
The Court rejected the argument that it lacked authority over Parliament-related matters. It stated that its role in prosecuting criminal charges is separate from Parliament’s authority to address members’ misconduct.
Despite an agreement signed in 1996 prohibiting the use of firearms and explosives along the border, tensions remain high. The clashes in Ladakh in 2020 marked the most significant escalation since the 73-day Doklam standoff in Bhutan in 2017. In the aftermath of the Galwan Valley clash, both nations deployed tens of thousands of troops along the LAC. As of now, approximately 60,000 soldiers from each side remain stationed in the region, making it one of the most militarized borders in the world.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment of March 4, 2024, represents a pivotal moment in India’s fight against corruption, reinforcing the principle that no one is above the law—not even lawmakers. By overturning the 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao ruling, the Court has clarified the boundaries of parliamentary immunity, ensuring it is used to protect legislative functions, not criminal activities. This decision underscores the judiciary’s vital role in upholding democratic values, public trust, and legislative integrity. Bribery, now firmly established as a standalone offense beyond the shield of immunity, sets a robust precedent for accountability in public office. The ruling is a significant step toward combating corruption and strengthening the foundation of India’s democracy, ensuring that lawmakers are held to the highest standards of integrity and accountability.
