Today, the Supreme Court will deliver a significant verdict on whether lawmakers are protected by immunity when facing allegations of bribery concerning legislative functions such as voting or speech-making. This decision, pending since Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s constitution bench reserved judgment on October 5, 2023, revisits a contentious 1998 ruling arising from the JMM bribery scandal that had significant implications for parliamentary privilege and criminal accountability.
The heart of the debate is whether parliamentary privilege serves to shield legislators from bribery charges, particularly when the bribes are for actions taken within the legislative chambers. The 1998 Supreme Court ruling in the PV Narasimha Rao versus CBI case suggested that MPs had such immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution. Now, the seven-judge bench must determine if this immunity extends to activities with inherent criminality, even when they occur inside the parliament or state legislatures.
The review initiated in 2019 during the tenure of then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was catalyzed by the appeal of Sita Soren, a JMM MLA involved in the JMM bribery case. The spotlight turns once more to a decades-old scandal, which had at its centre the voting by JMM legislators to save the minority government of Narasimha Rao in 1993 from a no-confidence motion—a vote marred by allegations of bribery. As the judicature stands on the cusp of potentially reshaping lawmaker privileges, the legal fraternity anticipates guidance on the delicate balance between legislative freedoms and the imperatives of criminal justice.