The 1998 Verdict
Issue: The central issue was whether Members of Parliament (MPs) and legislative assemblies (MLAs) should have immunity from prosecution for actions taken in the House, including accepting bribes.
Articles Involved: Articles 105 and 194 of the Indian Constitution, which deal with privileges and immunities of MPs and MLAs.
Background: The case originated from the proceedings in Parliament on July 28, 1993, when the government led by Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao faced a "no-confidence motion." Some MPs allegedly voted in favor of the government after accepting bribes.
Verdict: The Supreme Court, in April 1998, with a 3:2 majority, interpreted the Constitution to provide immunity to MPs/MLAs for actions in the House, including accepting bribes.
Current Case and Issues
Issue: The central question being reconsidered is whether MPs and MLAs should continue to enjoy immunity from prosecution for accepting bribes to ask questions or vote in the House.
Articles Involved: Articles 105 and 194 of the Indian Constitution remain at the core of this case.
Background: The current case involves Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) legislator Sita Soren, who allegedly accepted a bribe but did not vote as directed during the Rajya Sabha election of March 2012.
High Court Judgment: The Jharkhand High Court in February 2014 ruled that Sita Soren was not immune under Article 194 because she did not cast her vote in favor of the bribe-giver.
Reconsideration: A seven-judge bench was constituted by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to re-examine the 1998 verdict. The bench will hear arguments on the matter from October 4.
Key Arguments and Conflict Resolution
Arguments: The key arguments revolve around the interpretation of the Constitution. The 1998 verdict granted immunity based on actions in the House, while the current bench argues that bribe-taking itself is a crime, regardless of subsequent actions.
Moral Aspect: The CJI emphasizes the need to reconsider the law, addressing the morality of people's representatives who take bribes.
Conflict Resolution: The Supreme Court notes the presence of four "eminent counsels" in the case, ensuring correct legal assistance for decision-making.
Impact on Law: The bench suggests that the law needs clarification due to conflicting viewpoints and its impact on anti-corruption laws.
This case is crucial as it raises fundamental questions about the interpretation of the Indian Constitution, the moral responsibility of elected representatives, and the implications of granting immunity in cases of bribery. The Supreme Court's decision will have far-reaching consequences for the legal framework surrounding bribery and the ethical conduct of MPs and MLAs in India. The resolution process involves a thorough re-examination of the 1998 verdict and its impact on contemporary anti-corruption laws.
The case that is being reconsidered regarding the immunity of Members of Parliament (MPs) and legislative assemblies (MLAs) from prosecution for accepting bribes was known as the "PV Narasimha Rao case" or the "JMM bribery case."
In the context of the 1998 verdict that granted immunity to MPs and MLAs for actions taken in the House, the case was primarily associated with the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader Shibu Soren and other MPs who were alleged to have taken bribes to vote against a no-confidence motion in 1993 to save the Congress-led coalition government headed by PV Narasimha Rao. This case was often referred to as the "JMM bribery case" because of the involvement of JMM leaders.
The current reconsideration of this case involves a similar question of whether MPs and MLAs should retain immunity for accepting bribes, and it includes JMM legislator Sita Soren. However, the specific name of the case may vary in legal records, but it is commonly associated with the broader JMM bribery case or PV Narasimha Rao case.
