Majority Verdict In JMM Bribery Case Was Wrong, Centre Tells SC

Relevance: GS2 - Polity & Governance; Indian Constitution—historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.

(Source: The Hindu, 10/05/2023)

Click here for Daily Current Affairs

Why in the news?

• Recently, a seven-judge Supreme Court bench has reserved its verdict on reconsidering a 1998 judgment that granted MPs and MLAs immunity from prosecution for taking bribes related to legislative activities.
• The bench is revisiting this decision 25 years after the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) bribery scandal.
• The 1998 judgment was based on Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) of the Constitution, granting immunity for speeches and votes in Parliament and state legislatures.

What is the JMM Bribery Case?

• In 1993, a bribery scandal emerged involving four Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MLAs and eight other MPs including Shibhu Soren (JMM chief and former Union Minister) who were allegedly bribed to secure the Narsimha Rao government's survival in a no-confidence vote.
• These lawmakers voted as per the alleged bribes, and when the scandal became public, they sought immunity from criminal prosecution, arguing that their votes were cast within the confines of Parliament and, therefore, protected from legal consequences.
• This case revolves around the issue of whether Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) who accept bribes to vote or make speeches in a particular manner in the House are immune from criminal prosecution.

What did the Supreme Court rule out?

• The Supreme Court criticized a 1998 judgment that is believed to have distorted anti-corruption laws.
• According to the Chief Justice, the majority in that judgment had ruled that legislators would have immunity even if they took bribes, as long as they fulfilled their part of the corrupt bargain, such as voting in favor of the briber's interests, except in cases where they failed to fulfill their end of the corrupt bargain.
  • If a MP/MLA accepts a bribe and votes, then there is immunity.
  • If a person accepts the bribe and does not fulfill the bargain by abstaining from the vote or does not give the speech, he or she is liable to be punished,
• The key legal issue in this case revolves around Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Indian Constitution, which protect lawmakers from criminal or civil proceedings in any court "in respect of" anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies.

Rulings of the Case

Previous Rulings

• 1998: A five-judge SC Bench ruled in the JMM MPs’ bribery case that a lawmaker was immune to prosecution even if he/she took money to vote on the floor of the House.
• 2007: Another five-judge SC Bench ruled in Raja Ram Pal’s case that those who took money to ask questions in Parliament were liable to be expelled permanently.
• 2019: On March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court had ordered to set up a larger Constitution bench to decide if a lawmaker can take refuge under immunity clause to avoid criminal prosecution for voting in Parliament or Assembly after taking bribes from some beneficiary.

Current Issue

• Shibu Soren’s daughter-in-law Sita Soren, member of Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, is being prosecuted for allegedly taking bribes for voting in the 2012 Rajya Sabha poll.
• She is accused of receiving bribes from an RS candidate for casting her vote in his favour and then voting in favour of another candidate.

What is Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution?

Article 105(2)

• No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
• The purpose of Article 105(2) is to ensure that members of Parliament can perform their duties without fear of consequences.

Article 194(2)

• No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court referred the matter to a 7-judge Bench to review its 1998 decision in the PV Narasimha Rao case. This review recognizes the importance of reevaluating the correctness of that ruling.
• Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution aim to enable members of Parliament and State Legislatures to perform their duties without fear of repercussions for their speech or votes.
• These articles are intended to protect their freedom in performing their roles and responsibilities rather than providing them with extra immunity from the general criminal laws of the country.

(*Click this link to read prelims specific weekly current affairs articles)

FAQs