Supreme Court to Reevaluate Lawmaker Immunity for Criminal Acts
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has initiated a reconsideration of the immunity granted to lawmakers for criminal acts perpetrated during their tenure. A seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has begun hearing arguments on whether lawmakers can enjoy immunity if their actions involve criminality.
The top court’s 1998 verdict had granted Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) protection against prosecution for accepting bribes in exchange for voting or making speeches in Parliament and state legislatures.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed the view that the question of criminality should be addressed under the Prevention of Corruption Act rather than Article 105, which deals with the immunity available to lawmakers. Mehta argued that the offense of bribery is complete once a bribe is given and accepted, regardless of whether the lawmaker actually performs the criminal act.
The bench highlighted the 1998 judgment, which had upheld immunity for lawmakers irrespective of criminality. However, the current hearings will delve into the issue of whether immunity can be attached when criminality is involved. The constitution bench, comprising Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, Manoj Misra, and Chief Justice Chandrachud, emphasized that the issue of immunity will ultimately have to be addressed.
This reconsideration comes almost 25 years after the infamous JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha) bribery scandal rocked the nation. The Supreme Court, recognizing the significant impact on the morality of politics, had agreed on September 20 to reevaluate the 1998 judgment. Consequently, a five-judge bench referred the matter to the present seven-judge bench.
The 1998 judgment, delivered in the PV Narasimha Rao versus CBI case, established that parliamentarians possessed immunity against criminal prosecution for speeches and votes cast within the House, as stipulated by Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) of the Constitution. These articles state that no member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly can be subjected to court proceedings based on their parliamentary activities.
The crucial question of whether this constitutional provision granting immunity should apply to lawmakers accused in the JMM bribery scandal was initially raised in 2019 by a bench led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The bench referred the matter to a five-judge bench, noting its substantial public importance and wide ramifications.
The case pertained to Sita Soren, a JMM MLA from Jama and daughter-in-law of party chief Shibu Soren, who faced accusations of accepting bribes in exchange for her vote during the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. Sita Soren argued that the immunity granted to lawmakers, which had benefited her father-in-law in the JMM bribery scandal, should also be applied to her.
The Supreme Court, at the time, quashed the CBI case against Shibu Soren and four other JMM Lok Sabha MPs, citing the immunity provided by Article 105(2) of the Constitution. Sita Soren appealed against the Jharkhand High Court’s decision not to dismiss the criminal case filed against her.
The ongoing hearings aim to resolve the question of whether immunity can be maintained when criminal acts are involved. The Supreme Court’s reconsideration of this immunity provision will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the functioning of the Indian political system.
