Law Maker

P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)

Supreme Court of India · 17 April 1998 · 5 judges

Overruled in whole or in part by Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024), which says: “We disagree with and overrule the judgment of the majority on this aspect.”

By majority, Members of Parliament who took bribes and voted in Parliament are immune from prosecution under Article 105(2), but bribe givers and a non-voting Member are not; Members are public servants under the 1988 Act.

Facts

In July 1993 a no-confidence motion against the minority Government led by P.V. Narasimha Rao was defeated in the Lok Sabha by 265 votes to 251. On a 1996 complaint, the CBI charged Narasimha Rao and others with conspiring to bribe Members of Parliament of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and a breakaway Janata Dal (Ajit Singh) group to vote against the motion, under Section 120B IPC and Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The alleged bribe takers, except Ajit Singh who abstained, voted against the motion. The Special Judge, Delhi framed charges, rejecting objections based on Article 105 and on the Members not being public servants, and the High Court dismissed the revision petitions. The accused appealed by special leave.

Questions before the Court

  1. Does Article 105(2) or 105(3) give a Member of Parliament immunity from prosecution in a criminal court for taking a bribe to vote in a particular way in Parliament, and does any immunity extend to the bribe givers?
  2. Is a Member of Parliament a 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
  3. If so, who is competent to grant sanction under Section 19(1) for prosecuting a Member of Parliament, and can a court take cognizance without sanction?

What the Court held

  • Article 105(2), broadly construed, protects a Member against court proceedings that relate to or have a nexus with anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament. The alleged bribe takers who voted against the motion were therefore immune, and the charges against them failed (Bharucha and Ray, JJ., and one other Judge).
  • The immunity attaches only to a vote actually given or speech actually made. Ajit Singh, who did not vote, had no immunity, and the protection under Article 105(3) was not attracted.
  • Article 105(2) does not make the act lawful; it only makes the Member not answerable in court. Those who conspired with the Members, the alleged bribe givers, have no immunity and can be prosecuted. Parliament may proceed against both for breach of privilege or contempt.
  • A Member of Parliament is a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (all opinions agree).
  • No authority is competent to remove a Member and grant sanction under Section 19(1), so a court may take cognizance without sanction. Until Parliament amends the law, the prosecuting agency must obtain the permission of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or Speaker of the Lok Sabha before filing a charge-sheet (Agrawal and Ray, JJ., and one other Judge).

Why it matters

By a 3:2 majority the Court held that Article 105(2) protects Members of Parliament from prosecution for accepting bribes in connection with votes actually cast in the House, while leaving the bribe givers and non-voting Members open to prosecution. It also held that Members of Parliament are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and devised an interim safeguard of the presiding officer's permission before a charge-sheet is filed.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Broadly interpreted, as we think it should be, Article 105(2) protects a Member of Parliament against proceedings in court that relate to, or concern, or have a connection or nexus with anything said, or a vote given, by him in Parliament.”
S.P. Bharucha, J.Page 83 of the judgment
“Our conclusion is that the alleged bribe takers, other than Ajit Singh, have the protection of Article 105(2) and are not answerable in a court of law for the alleged conspiracy and agreement. The charges against them must fail. Ajit Singh, not having cast a vote on the no-confidence motion, derives no immunity from Article 105(2).”
S.P. Bharucha, J.Page 86 of the judgment
“If a member of Parliament has, by his speech or vote in Parliament, committed an offence, he enjoys , by reason of Article 105(2), immunity from prosecution therefor. Those who have conspired with the member of Parliament in the commission of that offence have no such immunity. They can, therefore, be prosecuted for it.”
S.P. Bharucha, J.Page 87 of the judgment
“In order that Members of Parliament may not be subjected to criminal prosecution on the basis of frivolous or malicious allegations at the hands of interested persons, the prosecuting agency, before filing a charge-sheet in respect of an offence punishable under Section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the 1988 Act against a Member of Parliament in a criminal court, shall obtain the permission of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the case may be.”
S.C. Agrawal, J.Page 61 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

    Case and bench

    Parties
    P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)
    Case
    Criminal Appeal No. 1207 of 1997 and connected appeals
    Decided
    17 April 1998
    Bench
    S.C. Agrawal, G.N. Ray, A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha, S. Rajendra Babu
    Opinions
    Three opinions, by S.C. Agrawal, J., S.P. Bharucha, J. and G.N. Ray, J. Ray, J. agreed with Bharucha, J. that Members who voted have immunity under Article 105(2), and with Agrawal, J. that Members of Parliament are public servants and on sanction; so the Court divided 3:2 on immunity, with Agrawal, J.'s view on sanction prevailing.

    Questions on this case

    2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.