New Delhi : Following is the chronology of events that led to Supreme Court’s landmark verdict holding that MPs and MLAs taking bribes to vote or make a speech in the House are not immune from criminal prosecution:
April 17, 1998: A five-judge Constitution bench, by 3:2 majority, held in the the Narasimha Rao vs CBI case, also known as JMM bribery case, that lawmakers have immunity against criminal prosecution for any speech made and the vote cast inside the House under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution
February 17, 2014: Jharkhand HC refuses to quash criminal case against JMM leader Sita Soren for allegedly taking bribe in Rajya Sabha polls in 2012
September 23, 2014: A two-judge SC bench places before a larger bench the plea of JMM leader Sita Soren
March 7, 2019: A three-judge bench refers the issue related to immunity of lawmakers to a larger bench
September 20, 2023: A five-judge bench refers the issue and reconsideration of the 1998 verdict to a bench of seven judges
October 5, 2023: The seven-judge bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud reserves judgment
March 4, 2024: Observing that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privileges, the seven-judge bench overturns five-judge bench’s interpretation in the 1998 verdict in the JMM bribery case.
It holds that MPs and MLAs taking bribes to vote or make a speech in the House are not immune from criminal prosecution.
Supreme Court (SC) has recently ruled to abolish lawmakers’ immunity on taking bribes, marking a significant shift in the legal landscape of the country. The journey towards this historic decision has been a complex and lengthy process, shaped by various legal challenges and societal demands for increased accountability.
The roots of this development trace back to the increasing concerns over corruption within the political sphere. Citizens and advocacy groups have long criticized the existing legal framework that shielded lawmakers from prosecution for accepting bribes while performing their legislative duties. The perceived impunity enjoyed by elected officials had sparked public outrage and demands for legal reforms.
The push for ending lawmakers’ immunity faced numerous legal challenges, with several attempts to challenge existing laws in lower courts. These legal battles were fueled by activists, NGOs, and concerned citizens who sought to redefine the boundaries of legislative immunity. The Supreme Court took cognizance of the gravity of the issue, acknowledging the need for a thorough examination of the constitutional and legal aspects surrounding lawmakers’ immunity.
The legal journey saw several landmark rulings that set the stage for the eventual decision. In one pivotal case, a group of citizens filed a public interest litigation (PIL), arguing that immunity should not extend to cases of bribery. The court, in its ruling, highlighted the importance of ensuring accountability among elected representatives and initiated a broader discourse on the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to lawmakers’ privileges.
The legal debate also involved extensive constitutional deliberations, with legal scholars, constitutional experts, and lawmakers engaging in a rigorous discourse on the intent of the framers of the constitution regarding legislative immunity. The court, in a series of hearings, weighed historical perspectives and contemporary challenges to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of the constitutional provisions in question.
Public outcry played a pivotal role in shaping the narrative around legislative immunity. Mass protests, social media campaigns, and civil society movements garnered widespread support, pressuring lawmakers to reconsider their stance on the issue. As a response to this groundswell of public opinion, some legislative bodies initiated internal discussions on potential reforms, signaling a shift in political will towards ending impunity for bribery within the legislative sphere.
The Supreme Court, having considered the legal arguments, constitutional principles, and the evolving societal dynamics, delivered a historic verdict. The decision to end lawmakers’ immunity on taking bribes is a monumental step towards fostering transparency, accountability, and trust in the democratic process. The ruling not only reflects the evolving legal landscape but also underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and equality. ( With PTI Inputs )