Are MPs/MLAs immune from bribery charges? Seven-judge Constitution Bench of Supreme Court to decide

The Supreme Court on Wednesday referred to a seven-judge Constitution Bench the question of whether the legal immunity enjoyed by legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution protects them from prosecution for taking a bribe [Sita Soren v. Union of India]..Article 105(2) confers on Members of Parliament (MPs) immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given by them in parliament or any parliamentary committee. Article 194(2) grants similar protection to Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs).A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in PV Narasimha Rao v. State had held that Article 105(2) even protects MPs from facing bribery charges. A 3:2 majority reasoned that 105(2) applies not only to voting but anything connected to voting including taking bribes that influenced the voting.A larger bench will now be constituted to reconsider this judgment..Today, a Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra noted that MPs and MLAs must be free to express their views on the floor of the house without fear of consequences, but are not necessarily immune to criminal action."While Article 19(1)(a) recognises individual right to free speech, the object of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) does not prima facie look to render immunity from launch of penal proceedings for violation of criminal law which may arise independently from the exercise of rights and duties as a member of Parliament...purpose of 105(2) and 194(2) is...not to make them separate with higher privileges than the common man who has remedies before the criminal law," the Bench said..The five-judge Constitution Bench was hearing a case dealing with the question of whether the legal immunity given to MPs and MLAs protects them from prosecution for taking a bribe even if the amount was not used as per the demand of the bribe-giver..The issue arose in a plea filed by Sita Soren, sister-in-law of current Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, who was accused of taking a bribe to vote for a particular candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha Elections.A complaint was filed in 2012 with the Chief Election Commissioner of India seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the case. Soren was charged with the offences of criminal conspiracy and bribery under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and for criminal misconduct by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.In 2014, while hearing her plea seeking quashing of the case, the Jharkhand High Court noted that Soren had not cast her vote for the person who had offered her the bribe. The High Court thus held that Soren was not immune from prosecution since there was no direct nexus between the voting and the bribe. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.Before the apex court, Soren contended that the decision in PV Narsimha Rao should be interpreted broadly so that politicians can speak their mind without fearing legal action..During today's hearing, Attorney General (AG) for India R Venkataramani argued that the judgment in PV Narsimha Rao does not need to be reconsidered.Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, who is the amicus curiae in the case along with advocate Gaurav Agarwal, stressed that the purpose of such immunity was not to create "super-citizens".Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that since the 1998 judgment, there has been substantial developments in law with respect to the interpretation and understanding of fundamental rights and public morality."Institutional integrity was held as an important factor when dealing with quo warranto. All these factors are present to persuade for a larger bench reference of PV Narsimha Rao," he stated..CJI Chandrachud then stated that the Court cannot miss an opportunity to straighten the law. The five-judge Constitution Bench eventually proceeded to direct reconsideration of the decision in PV Narsimha Rao by a larger bench."It becomes necessary for us to determine whether reconsideration of PV Narsimha Rao is warranted. The genesis is Article 105(2) and equivalent article 194(2) of the Indian Constitution," the bench noted.As the hearing drew to a close, the CJI remarked that the larger bench would be set up in a week or two..Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran with advocate Vivek Singh appeared for Sita Soren.