Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024): Bribery Outside the Scope of Parliamentary Privileges

● Case: Sita Soren v. Union Of India 2024

○ Coram: 7 Judges

1. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud

2. A.S. Bopanna

3. M.M. Sundresh

4. J.B. Pardiwala

5. Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

6. Manoj Mishra 

7. Sanjay Kumar

Issue: 

Would a legislator who receives a bribe to cast a vote in a certain direction or speak about certain issues be protected by parliamentary privilege.

Sections: 

Section 105(2)- No MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.

Section 194(2)- Same for MLAs

Facts: Jharkhand MLA did not cast vote after taking bribe in rajya Sabha election High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the appellant had not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver, not entitled to the protection under Article 194(2). (Scope of present judgment confined to doubting correctness of PV. Narasimha 1998)

PV. Narasimha Rao v. State 1998 (5 Judge bench)

1. Two Issues were there 1 is the same as the present case and another one was MP falls within purview of POCA, 1988 [2024 judgment deals with only one issue]

Held: 

● SP bharucha & S Rajendra babu - 

1. In respect of” in Article 105(2) must receive a “broad meaning” MP is protected from any proceedings in a court of law that relate to, nexus with anything said or a vote given by him in Parliament.

2. Also - Why does an MP not voting after taking Bribery will not come under 105 - immunity under Article 105(2) is operative only insofar as it pertains to what has been said or voted.

3. Bribe givers are liable.

● SC Garwal & AS Anand

1. Expression “in respect of” precedes the words “anything said or any vote given” in Article 105(2). The words “anything said or any vote given” can only mean speech that has been made or a vote that has already been given and does not extend to cases where the speech has not been made or the vote has not been cast. (Dissented majority)

2. Act of acceptance of a bribe for speaking or giving a vote against the motion arises independently of the making of the speech or giving of the vote by the MP.

GN Ray concurred with 1st 2 judges this forming majority against S.C. Agarwal.

Submissions made by Appellant and intervenors (on behalf of MLA of Jharkhand and Attorney/solicitors respectively)

1. Attorney General, the election of members to the Rajya Sabha is akin to any other election process and cannot be treated as a matter of business or function of the legislature, hence no immunity.

2. Intervenors - The offence under Section 7 (and Section 13) of the POCA does not require ‘performance’. Therefore, Voting or speech is irrelevant of Bribery, Also word any should not include everything because of exceptional immunity and strict and narrow interpretation in corruption case.

3. Amicus curiae - Minority judgment of PV Narasimha is correct and USA Canada UK too does not give immunity to Bribery.

4. Appellant - The overruling of long-settled law in PV Narasimha Rao is unwarranted according to the tests laid down by this court on overturning judicial precedents (keshav mills co. 1965 cited)

Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao does not violate the principle of stare decisis 

1. Smaller bench must follow larger bench judgment but similar bench can raise question and place it before larger bench (as happened here from 2 judges bench to 3 then 5 where doubtless was raised in 2023 and placed before 7 bench)

2. Ability of this Court to reconsider its decisions is necessary for the organic development of law and the advancement of justice. If this Court is denuded of its power to reconsider its decisions, the development of constitutional jurisprudence would virtually come to a standstill.

3. Court may review its earlier decisions if it believes that there is an error, or the effect of the decision would harm the interests of the public or if “it is inconsistent with the legal philosophy of the Constitution”.

4. After 1998 the judgement has been discorded in many cases.

History of parliamentary privilege in India  

1. House of commons - Privileges were acquired by colonial usage and not by statute.

2. 1833 Council Act 

3. 1919 Act gave a qualified privilege of freedom of speech to the Houses of Legislature.

Note: At no point were these privileges demanded as a blanket immunity from criminal law, related only with legislative function.

4. The members of the Constituent Assembly were therefore keenly aware that their privileges under the colonial rule were not ‘ancient and undoubted’ like the House of Commons in the UK but a statutory grant made by successive enactments and assertion by legislatures. 

Parliamentary Privilege in India 

1. Article 19 (1)(a) different from 105 and pari materia 194 explained - Alagaapuram R Mohanraj v. TN Legislative Assembly 

A. Geographical limitation 

B. Till tenure 

C. Only to MPs

D. Not subject to 19(2)

2. Tej Kiran Jain v. N Sanjeeva Reddy, a six-judge bench of SC held that Article 105(2) confers immunity in respect of “anything said” so long as it is “in Parliament.”

3. Necessity test - They are powers which depend upon and are necessary for the conduct of the business of each House. (State of Karnataka v. UOI)

BRIBERY IS NOT PROTECTED BY PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

1. This Court’s opinion in PV Narasimha rao hinged on two phrases in 105(2) These phrases were “in respect of” and the following word “anything.” 

State (NCT of Delhi) v Union of India 2018- Text to be read with context - word 'ANY' can vary according to context.

 2. Extent of privilege exercisable by a member individually must satisfy the two fold test namely its tether to the collective functioning of the House and its necessity.  

3. We may not interpret the words “anything” or “any” without reading the operative word on which it applies i.e. “said” and “vote given” respectively. 

4. The words “in respect of” means arising out of or bearing a clear relation and not too remote (overruled P.V. Narasimha)

5. The Constitution envisions probity in public life - Minority in P.V. Narasimha Rao was correct as Bribery not consistent with object/purpose of provision that is privileges essential for house collectively necessary for functioning, corruption is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive and representative democracy. 

Object is Free will (speech) and is not exercised when induced by bribe.

6. It is settled law that in interpreting the constitutional provisions the court should adopt a construction which strengthens the foundational features and the basic structure of the Constitution Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India

7. Offence of bribery is not contingent on the performance of the promise for which money is given or is agreed to be given.

8. Delivery of results is irrelevant to the offence of bribery section 7 of POCA

9. Rejected the argument (bribe taking breach of privilege of house and house has taken action in past) of appellant and held - Courts and the House exercise parallel jurisdiction over allegations of bribery - 

The purpose of the proceedings which a House may conduct is to restore its dignity. Criminal trial differs from contempt of the House.   

Bribe taking action may bring indignity to the House and may also attract prosecution. What it does not attract is the immunity.

Elections to the Rajya Sabha are within the remit of Article 194(2) 

1. Marginal note plays a very little part in the construction of a statutory provision. It should have much less importance in construing a constitutional provision, may be used for clue purpose but real meaning is from bare text of article.

2. There is a clear departure from the term ‘Legislature’ which is used in the first limb, to use the term “House of such a legislature" in second limb 105(2) 

Legislature Vs House of legislature -

House of Legislature” refers to the juridical body, which is summoned by the Governor pursuant to Article 174. The term “Legislature”, refers to the wider concept under Article 168, comprising the Governor and the Houses of the Legislature. continues to function/exist even when the Governor has not summoned the House. 

2. Role played by the Rajya Sabha constitutes a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. (K.S. Puttuswamy v. UOI 2018) 

3. Minority in PV Narasimha Rao to strengthen the proposition that while interpreting the Constitution, the Court should adopt a construction which strengthens the foundational features and the basic structure of the Constitution.

4. No dispute with the proposition that elections to the Rajya Sabha are not part of the law-making functions and do not take place during a sitting of the House. However, the text of Article 194 consciously uses the term ‘Legislature’ instead of ‘House’ to include parliamentary processes which do not necessarily take place on the floor of the House.

5. Overruled Kuldip nayar v. UOI, 2006 on the aspect that election of rajya Sabha not part of legislature however this court held that they are part (see 4th point)

Conclusions 

Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast.