The Supreme Courtroom on Monday will pronounce its judgment on whether or not Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Meeting (MLAs) get pleasure from immunity from being prosecuted for taking bribes to make a speech or solid a vote in legislature.
In October 2023, a seven-judge Constitutional bench had reserved its verdict after listening to arguments within the case.
Centre had submitted within the court docket that bribery can by no means be a topic of immunity and a parliamentary privilege isn’t meant to put a lawmaker above regulation. The highest court docket had mentioned it would study if the immunity granted to lawmakers from prosecution extends to them even when criminality is connected to their actions.
ALSO READ | Indira Gandhi’s Win To Chandigarh Mayor Polls: How Judiciary Stepped In To Uphold Sanctity Of Elections
In 1988, a 5 decide bench of the highest court docket had delivered a verdict which held that MPs and MLAs had been immune from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote within the legislature.
The query of immunity to lawmakers got here below the Supreme Courtroom’s scrutiny in 2019, when a bench headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi was listening to a plea filed by Sita Soren, JMM MLA from Jama.
Sita Soren allegedly took bribes to vote for a candidate within the Rajya Sabha polls in 2012. She has argued that she enjoys immunity from prosecution. Earlier, her father-in-law Shibu Soren loved the perks of immunity to lawmakers when he was accused within the JMM bribery rip-off.
A five-judge bench of the apex court docket in 1998 gave a verdict within the JMM bribery case by which MPs and MLAs got immunity from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in legislature.
The seven-judge bench is reconsidering this judgement delivered by a five-judge bench.
What WasThe Case That Led To The 1998 Verdict?
In 1991, the Congress received Lok Sabha elections and shaped the federal government with P.V. Narasimha Rao because the Prime Minister. In July 1993, Narasimha Rao’s authorities confronted a no-confidence movement, which it narrowly defeated by a margin of 14 votes.
Following this, a criticism was filed below the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), alleging that some Parliamentarians had been bribed to vote in opposition to a no-confidence movement in favour of the Congress authorities.
The accused MPs mentioned that they loved immunity below Article 105 of the Structure for any votes solid by them in Parliament and any actions related to casting such votes. They additional contended that as MPs don’t maintain public workplace, they can’t be introduced below PCA.
In 1998, by a 3:2 majority the Supreme Courtroom dominated that MPs are immune from prosecution not only for votes solid by them in Parliament, but additionally for any acts related to the casting of such votes.
It now meant that if an MP was bribed to vote in a sure method in Parliament, then the act of receiving this bribe can be protected by Article 105(2), and that they didn’t come below the scope of the PCA. The highest court docket will ship its verdict on the correctness of this judgment tomorrow.