Case Title: Sita Soren v. UOI, 2024 INSC 161.
Table of Contents
7 Judges Bench
CJI DY Chandrachud, J. A.S Bopanna, J. M.M. Sundresh, J. PS Narasimha, J. J.B. Pardiwala, J. Sanjay Kumar and J. Manoj Mishra. (7 Judge Bench)
Introduction
This is a landmark case on the issue of Parliamentary Privileges. Earlier, in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case, it was held that legislators who receive bribes and speak (cast a vote) are protected by parliamentary privileges guaranteed under Articles 105 and 194. However, bribe-givers and legislators who take bribes but do not speak (or abstain from voting) cannot claim protection under these articles.
This case changed that position by addressing the serious anomaly in the previous decision. While deciding the issue of whether the protection for bribery under Article 105(2) exists, the Supreme Court also answered important questions related to the principle of stare decisis, the parallel jurisdiction of the House and the Courts, and the interpretation of marginal notes, among other issues.
Facts
The appellant belongs to JMM, and an allegation of bribery was imposed on the grounds that she accepted the bribe for casting a vote for an independent candidate to elect them as one of two members of Rajya Sabha representing the State of Jharkhand. In an open ballot, it came out that she cast a vote in favour of a candidate from her own party. The appellant moved HC to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings instituted against her. She claimed protection under Article 195(2) of the Constitution, relying on the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao v. State.
The HC quashed stating that she did not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver and thus, is not entitled to the protection under Article 194(2). On 20th September 2023, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court questioned the correctness of the decision in PV Narasimha Rao and referred the matter to a larger bench of seven judges(present bench). (¶ 1 to ¶ 12)
Issues
Whether by virtue of Article 105 or 194 of the Constitution, an MP or MLA can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court?
Submissions
The counsel representing the appellant submitted that it is unwarranted to turn a well-reasoned judgment. There is an object behind such immunity and such immunity is not against the rule of law. The majority judgment recognizes exclusive power of parliament in taking action against the corrupt practices of house members. The counsel further presented arguments stating the reasons to follow judgment laid down in PV Narasimha Rao. ¶ 16
The counsel representing Union stated that the decision in PV Narasimha Rao is inapplicable to the instant case. He submitted that exercise of power to elect Rajya Sabha member do not fall within the ambit of Article 194(2).
Judgment
The Court overruled the majority decision in the case of PV Narasimha Rao. It stated that overruling the judgment which is in public interest is not a violation of principle of stare decisis. The Parliament or State Legislature is not the sole judge of privileges. They can claim privileges which are essential and necessary for the functioning of this house. The privileges must satisfy the twofold test. Also, the Bribery is completed outside the precincts of the House, it is not protected by Parliamentary Privilege. Further, the voting for elections to the Rajya Sabha is within the ambit of Article 194(2).
Reasons Stated
The reasons highlighted by the Supreme Court in different headings as follows:
On Stare Decisis
The Court stated that overturning PV Narasimha Rao does not violate the principles of stare decisis. As a larger bench is considering the issue and previously also several judgments questioning the correctness of the majority view were there such as Kalpana Mehta v. UOI; Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Loksabha; Kuldip Nayar v. UOI and Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha. However, in all these judgments as the issue was not directly related to PV Narasimha Rao case court refrained from making a reference or conclusive observations about the correctness of this decision. ¶27
Further, the court referred to the statement that “An erroneous interpretation of the Constitution may quite conceivably be perpetuated or may at any rate remain unrectified for a considerable time to the great detriment to public well-being.” Observed by the SC in Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. ¶32
The SC also referred to Mark Graves v. People of the State of New York, where the United States Supreme Court overruled two previous decisions on a question of constitutional importance. “…the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” ¶43
Therefore, the Court said that the principle of stare decisis does not take away the power of court to reconsider its own decision. In this case, public interest requires it to be reconsidered.
On Parliamentary Privilege
The court conducted functional analysis of Parliamentary Privilege in India. The freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 105(1) and 194(1) is distinct from that guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).[1] The differences are: 1) Only available to MPs and MLAs 2) Only available during tenure of the membership of those bodies. 3) Only available within premises of legislative bodies. 4) There is no restriction as provided under Article 19(2). ¶65
Some privileges are decided by the Constitution and some left to be decided by Parliament through legislation. Some privileges are same as privileges of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the UK, and of its members & committees, at the commencement of this constitution. The privileges from UK was accepted since it was practiced for long time and have become ancient and undoubted. ¶ 66,67 and 68
In State of Karnataka v. UOI, the opinion in Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 was affirmed by seven-judge bench which held that whenever a question arises whether the House have jurisdiction over a matter under its privileges, the adjudication of such a claim is vested exclusively in the courts.
Therefore, the Supreme Court held that Parliament or State Legislature is not the sole judge of privileges. They can claim privileges which are essential and necessary for the functioning of this house. ¶75
Parliamentary Privilege is a collective right of the House
Privileges are necessary as they are important for the House and its committees to function. In State of Kerala v. K Ajith, it was held that right guaranteed under Article 105(1) of the Constitution would not exclude the application of ordinary criminal law against acts not in direct exercise of the duties of the individual as a member of the House. ¶ 82
The House or its members cannot claim privileges which are not essentially related to their functioning. In Lokayukta, Justice Ripusudan Dayal v. State of MP, the privilege enjoyed by a House or its members must be tested on the basis of the necessity of the privilege to the House for its free functioning.
The Supreme Court, therefore, laid a twofold test in this case. 1) The privilege claimed has to be tethered to the collective functioning of the House, and 2) Its necessity must bear a functional relationship to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.
Bribery is not protected by Parliamentary Privilege
The SC in State (NCT of Delhi) v. UOI, held that the meaning of the word “any” can be varied depending on the context in which it appears and that the words “any matter” was not to be understood as “every matter”. Also, In K Ajith, it is evident that a person committing a criminal offence within the precincts of the House does not hold an absolute privilege. Instead, he would possess a qualified privilege. ¶96
Afterwards, the court delved into the logic of majority in PV Narasimha that a bribe-accepting member who did not comply with the quid pro quo was not immune from prosecution as his actions ceased to have a nexus with his vote. This understanding of the provision is overbroad and presumptive of enhanced privileges translating to better functioning of members of the House. ¶100
Therefore, this court held that it does not concur with the majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao.
Completion of offence of Bribery
The offence of bribery is completed on acceptance of the money or on agreement to accept money being concluded. ¶107 The offence is not contingent on the completion of the promise for which money is given or agreed to be given. Article 105(2) does not grant immunity against bribery. ¶113 As bribery crystallizes with the acceptance or agreement to accept money, it is irrelevant whether it is performed within the precincts of the House.
Elections to the Rajya Sabha are within the ambit of Article 194(2)
It is a settled position of law that the marginal note to a section in a statute does not control the meaning of the body of the section if the language employed is clear. It is very clearly and evidently provided in the texts of the first limb of Art. 194(2) the use of word “legislature” instead of the “house of legislature” at appropriate places. Whereas in the second limb, the phrase used is “in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a legislature of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings. ¶174
The terms “House of Legislature” and “Legislature” have different connotations. “House of Legislature” refers to the juridical body, which is summoned by the Governor pursuant to Article 174 whereas the term “Legislature” refers to the wider concept under Article 168., comprising the Governor and the House of the Legislature. It functions indefinitely and continues to exist even when the Governor has not summoned the House. ¶175
Now, the elections of Rajya Sabha may also occur when the House is not in session as seats may fall vacant when the legislative assembly of the state is not in session. However, the elections remain a part of the functioning of the Legislature and take place within the precincts of the Legislative Assembly. The purpose of parliamentary privilege to provide legislators with the platform is equally applicable to the elections of Rajya Sabha.
It is clarified by this court that voting for elections to the Rajya Sabha falls within the ambit of Article 194(2).
Conclusion
This Judgment is landmark because it held on to the serious question of bribery in legislative functioning. The bribery can shallow the functioning of the house. The earlier case which granted immunity to bribery clearly misinterpreted the parliamentary privileges to the extent of excessiveness. The effect of PV Narasimha decision promotes corruption in politics which further remains unquestionable due to immunity. This case promotes transparency, fairness and is more reasonable on the question of parliamentary privilege. The judgment enhances the functioning of a representative government. It is a positive step towards becoming a more stable and formidable democratic country.
We all are evident of the fact that despite all the laws. There are multiple scams which occur in our country due to corruption in politics. With this case, we have taken a step forward to become a corruption free country. However, it is a far-fetched dream but really possible with steps like these.
Watch Video on the topic
To read more judgment summaries click here.
Popular Questions related to Sita Soren Judgment
What was held in Sita Soren case, What were the principles of parliamentary privileges held as per Sita Soren judgment, What is relevance of Sita Soren in Bribery case, What are the two fold principle of parliamentary privileges laid in Sita Soren case, What was the accusation on Sita Soren in Sita Soren v. UOI, What are the facts of Sita Soren case on parliamentary privilege, What is the importance of Sita Soren Judgment, How does Sita Soren judgment affects the principles of parliamentary privileges, What was stated in Sita Soren related to the principle of stare decisis, which case was overruled in Sita Soren case, Why PV Narasimha judgment was overruled in Sita Soren.
Sita Soren v. UOI Case summary offers you a great insight into the realms of parliamentary privileges. It offers a great deal of analysis into important constitutional question of great relevance.
[1] Alagaapuram R Mohanraj v. TN Legislative Assembly, (2016) 6 SCC 82.
Leave a Reply