Are MPs/MLAs immune from bribery charges?: LIVE UPDATES from Supreme Court [Day 1]

A seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India is hearing submissions on 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].

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, PV Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra is hearing the matter.

The Supreme Court had referred the case to a seven-judge Constitution bench on September 20.

Article 105(2) of the Constitution 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. By a 3:2 majority, the Court reasoned that Article 105(2) applies not only to voting but anything connected to voting including taking bribes that influenced the voting.

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 an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Before the apex court, Soren had contended that the decision in PV Narsimha Rao should be interpreted broadly so that politicians can speak their minds without fearing legal action.

Live updates of the Constitution Bench hearing today feature here.