Does the Constitution protect MLAs from charges of bribery?
Last Updated on October 1, 2023 by News Desk
Issue – The Supreme Court submitted the issue of parliamentarians’ legal immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution to a seven-judge panel on September 20.
Facts of the case –The issue began from a petition filed by Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), who was accused of receiving a bribe to vote for a certain candidate in the Rajya Sabha elections of 2012.
After these allegations surfaced, a complaint was filed with the Chief Election Commissioner of India, requesting that the CBI launch an investigation into the matter. Following that, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charged Soren with bribery, criminal conspiracy, and criminal misconduct by a public official under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Arguments – Article 194(2) broadens the scope of this immunity to MLAs “No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any decisions in any court in respect of anything declared or any vote given by him in the legislature or any of its committees thereof, and no one shall be so liable in respect of the publication under or by the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.”
Reasoning – The intent of Articles 105(2) and 194(2), according to the court, is to ensure that members of the legislature and state legislatures are able to perform their responsibilities in a free environment without fear of repercussions for how they communicate or exercise their privilege to vote on the House floor. “The object obviously is not to tear apart those who are part of the Legislature as individuals who hold higher privileges when it comes to immunity from the effects of the broader criminal statutes of the land,” the Court said.
Case title – Sita Soren v. Union of India
Written by – Nikita Shankar
