Sita Soren v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 4 March 2024 · 7 judges · 2024 INSC 161
A member of Parliament or a State Legislature cannot claim immunity under Articles 105(2) or 194(2) from prosecution for bribery in connection with a vote or speech; the majority view in PV Narasimha Rao was overruled.
Facts
The appellant, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, was accused of accepting a bribe from an independent candidate to vote for him in the 2012 Rajya Sabha election. The open ballot showed that she voted for her own party's candidate instead. She sought quashing of the chargesheet, claiming immunity under Article 194(2) on the basis of PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE). The High Court of Jharkhand refused, holding that she had not voted for the alleged bribe giver. Her appeal went to a three-judge bench and then a five-judge bench, which recorded prima facie reasons doubting the majority view in PV Narasimha Rao and referred the question to seven judges. The merits of her case were not decided.
Questions before the Court
- Whether a legislator can claim immunity under Articles 105(2) or 194(2) from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with a vote or speech in the legislature.
- Whether the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao should be reconsidered and overruled.
- Whether voting by elected members of a State Legislative Assembly in a Rajya Sabha election falls within Article 194(2).
What the Court held
- Stare decisis is not inflexible. The majority view in PV Narasimha Rao granting immunity to legislators who take bribes to vote or speak has wide ramifications for probity in public life, and was overruled.
- An individual member's claim to privilege must satisfy a twofold test: it must be tethered to the collective functioning of the House and be necessary to the discharge of a legislator's essential duties. Immunity from prosecution for bribery fails both limbs.
- The words 'in respect of' in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) mean 'arising out of' or 'bearing a clear relation to'. Bribery is not essential to casting a vote or deciding how to vote, so it is not immune; the same applies to speeches.
- The offence of bribery is complete when the legislator accepts the bribe. It does not matter whether the vote is cast in the agreed direction or at all.
- The court's jurisdiction to try bribery and the House's authority to discipline its members exist in distinct spheres. Whether a claim of privilege conforms to the Constitution is open to judicial review.
- Voting by elected members of a State Legislative Assembly in elections to the Rajya Sabha falls within Article 194(2).
Why it matters
A seven-judge Bench overruled the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao on parliamentary immunity for bribery. The judgment lays down a twofold test for claims of privilege by individual members, reads 'in respect of' in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) as requiring a clear relation to the speech or vote, and removes the anomaly under which a bribe taker who voted as agreed was immune while one who did not could be prosecuted.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In the course of this judgment, while analysing the reasoning of the majority and minority in PV Narasimha Rao (supra) we have independently adjudicated on all the aspects of the controversy namely, whether by virtue of Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution a Member of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, as the case may be, can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court. We disagree with and overrule the judgment of the majority on this aspect.”
“An individual member of the legislature cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity under Articles 105 and 194 from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with a vote or speech in the legislature. Such a claim to immunity fails to fulfil the twofold test that the claim is tethered to the collective functioning of the House and that it is necessary to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator;”
“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. The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee;”
“The offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the agreed action and crystallizes on the exchange of illegal gratification. It does not matter whether the vote is cast in the agreed direction or if the vote is cast at all. The offence of bribery is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe;”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Overrules P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998)“We disagree with and overrule the judgment of the majority on this aspect.” (page 131)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Sita Soren v. Union of India
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019
- Decided
- 4 March 2024
- Bench
- Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, Manoj Misra
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the seven-judge Bench delivered by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, signed by all seven judges.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.