Sources: Deprivileging bribe: Voters should know that MPs do not act under monetary inducement, (The Hindu, March 6, 2024); Express View on overturning of JMM verdict: Protecting debate, The Indian Express, (March 6, 2024)
In a significant shift, the Supreme Court of India has addressed a longstanding controversial distinction between ‘bribe-givers’ and ‘bribe-takers’ that emerged from the infamous JMM bribery case over 25 years ago.
This move rectifies an anomaly in the law relating to parliamentary privileges, foregrounding probity in parliamentary functioning and redefining the scope of parliamentary privilege against the backdrop of bribery and corruption.
JMM Bribery Case Overview
- Historical Judgment: Over 25 years ago, the Supreme Court created a contentious separation between those who offered bribes and those who accepted them in the JMM bribery case, sparking widespread astonishment.
- Bribe-givers faced prosecution for corruption, while bribe-takers were shielded due to a constitutional privilege.
- Ajit Singh was an exception among bribe-takers; he faced prosecution because he was absent during the no-confidence vote.
- Anomaly Correction: The Supreme Court has now corrected this legal inconsistency, clarifying that Members of Parliament or State Legislatures cannot claim immunity from bribery charges.
- This ruling overturns the majority verdict in P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State (CBI/SPE) (1998), emphasizing probity as essential to parliamentary integrity.
Parliamentary Privilege and Bribery
- Clarification on Privilege: The Court has articulated that parliamentary privilege, while designed to protect free speech and legislative independence, does not cover acts of bribery.
- This stance revises the interpretation of Articles 105 (for MPs) and 194 (for State legislators), ensuring it aligns with the principles of democracy and probity.
- Rationale and Implications: The Court rejected the 1998 Constitution Bench’s rationale that parliamentary privilege is critical for protecting members from persecution, arguing instead for a balanced approach that does not compromise the integrity of parliamentary functions.
- Voting in the Rajya Sabha elections, as a legislative function, remains protected under Article 194 but is not immune from scrutiny regarding bribery.
Landmark Ruling and Expectations
- Overruling Previous Judgment: Dismissing the 1998 judgment in PV Narasimha Rao v State, the Supreme Court has set a new precedent emphasizing equality and probity in parliamentary democracy.
- The ruling corrects the previously granted immunity to lawmakers for bribery, stating it undermines the foundational principles of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy.
- Significance of the Verdict: This decision underlines the Court’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of parliamentary functions, emphasizing that privileges must serve the larger constitutional ideals and not shield wrongful actions.
- The judgment also touches on the potential for misuse of this ruling against opposition legislators, urging caution to ensure a balanced approach that fosters open debate and dissent within legislative bodies.