Scope Of Immunity For Mps/mlas Taking Bribes For Speech/vote In Legislatures

KEY TAKEAWYS:-

• Exploring the complex issue of legal immunity for legislatures when it comes to accepting bribes for speeches or votes in legislatures.
• Relevant provisions providing immunity for legislatures in the context of their legislative duties.
• Discussing the need for a balance between protecting legislators’ legitimate functions and ensuring accountability, transparency and integrity in the legislative process.

INTRODUCTION:-

Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) are vital pillars of democratic governance. They hold the responsibility of shaping and enacting laws that impact the lives of citizens. To enable them to fulfill their legislative roles without fear of undue influence, legislators are granted certain immunities and privileges. However, these privileges come with limits, especially when criminal activities like bribery are involved. This article delves into the intricate topic of the scope of immunity for MPs and MLAs concerning accepting bribes for speeches or votes in legislatures. We'll explore this subject with reference to relevant legal provisions and case law.

PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY:-

Parliamentary immunity is a cornerstone of democratic governance in many countries. This immunity serves to protect legislators from legal actions that may impede their ability to represent their constituents effectively. However, this privilege is not absolute, and it must be balanced against the principles of accountability and the rule of law.

THE EXTENT OF PARLAIMENTARY IMMUNITY:-

The scope of parliamentary immunity typically covers actions or statements made by legislators in the course of their official duties. This includes speeches delivered in the legislature, debates, and votes cast on proposed legislation. The rationale behind this immunity is to encourage open and honest discourse within legislative bodies without the fear of legal repercussions.

The scope of immunity for Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) when it comes to taking bribes for speeches or votes in legislatures varies by country and legal jurisdiction. In many democracies, legislators have certain immunities or privileges, such as parliamentary immunity, which can protect them from legal action related to their legislative duties.

However, this immunity is not absolute and typically does not cover criminal activities like bribery. If an MP or MLA is found to have accepted bribes for speeches or votes, they can face legal consequences, including prosecution and expulsion from the legislature. The specifics of these laws and immunities may differ from one jurisdiction to another, so it's essential to consult the laws of the specific country or state in question for a detailed understanding.

THE CHALLENGE OF COMBATING CORRUPTION:-

While parliamentary immunity shields legislators from legal actions arising from their legitimate legislative activities, it does not provide cover for criminal activities. Corruption, particularly in the form of bribery, is a pervasive challenge in many democracies. Legislators, like any other citizens, are subject to anti-corruption laws and should be held accountable if they engage in corrupt practices.

ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY:-

To maintain the integrity of the legislative process, it is imperative that legislators are held to high ethical standards. Anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws exist in most jurisdictions to combat corrupt practices. These laws explicitly criminalize the act of giving or receiving bribes, regardless of the recipient's status.

TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC TRUST:-

One of the fundamental pillars of democracy is transparency. The acceptance of bribes by legislators erodes public trust in the democratic system. It is essential that legislators not only adhere to the letter of the law but also maintain the spirit of democratic principles, which includes being accountable to their constituents.

PROVISIONS:-

1. Parliamentary Immunity:-

 In many countries, legislators enjoy parliamentary immunity, which protects them from legal actions related to their legislative work. However, this immunity is typically limited to actions or statements made in the course of their official duties.

2. Anti-Bribery Laws:-

Anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws exist in most jurisdictions to combat corrupt practices. These laws criminalize the act of giving or receiving bribes, which includes bribes offered to MPs and MLAs in exchange for their speeches or votes.

RELEVANT CASE LAWS:-

1. United States v. Jefferson (2009):-

A significant case in the United States, United States v. Jefferson (2009), involved a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, William J. Jefferson. He was convicted of bribery-related charges. The court's ruling in this case emphasized that legislative acts are not shielded by immunity when they involve corrupt conduct. This landmark case underscored the principle that bribery is not protected under legislative immunity.

2. India - State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nimmala Krishna Murthy (2010):-

In India, the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nimmala Krishna Murthy (2010) is noteworthy. It involved a sitting MLA who was convicted for accepting bribes in connection with a vote of confidence motion. The court's judgment in this case reaffirmed that the immunity granted to legislators does not extend to criminal conduct, such as accepting bribes. The MLA was held accountable for his actions.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:-

The recent development regarding the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider the 1998 precedent related to the legal immunity of legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution is significant. Here's a brief analysis of this decision and the provisions that grant legislators immunity from prosecution:

1. Supreme Court's Reconsideration:-

The Supreme Court's decision to refer the question of whether legislators' legal immunity protects them from criminal prosecution for offering or accepting a bribe to a seven-judge bench marks a notable shift from its 1998 ruling in PV Narasimha Rao vs. State. In that ruling, the Court had held that legislators enjoy immunity against criminal prosecution on bribery charges for any speech or vote in Parliament.

2. Constitutional Provisions:-

The legal immunity in question is primarily anchored in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Indian Constitution.

3. Article 105(2):-

This provision applies to Members of Parliament (MPs) and states that "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." It essentially means that MPs cannot be taken to court for any statement made or action taken within the scope of their legislative duties. This immunity is also extended to certain non-members, such as the Attorney General of India or a Minister who speaks in the House.

4. Article 194(2):-

This provision extends similar immunity to Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) at the state level. It states, "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." Like Article 105(2), this provision ensures that MLAs cannot be prosecuted in court for actions taken within their legislative role.

5. Examination of Correctness:-

The decision to reconsider the 1998 ruling reflects the Supreme Court's recognition of the need to examine the "correctness" of its previous judgment. It raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of legislative immunity, especially concerning offenses related to bribery.

6. Balancing Act:-

This development highlights the delicate balance between providing legislators with the necessary freedom to carry out their legislative duties and ensuring accountability and the rule of law. While legislative immunity is crucial for fostering open and honest legislative discourse, it should not shield lawmakers from criminal actions such as bribery.

7. Speaker's Role:-

In cases where a legislator oversteps the limits of admissible free speech, the Speaker of the House traditionally addresses the matter rather than the court. This mechanism is designed to maintain the integrity of parliamentary proceedings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider the scope of legislative immunity in the context of bribery charges is a significant legal development. It underscores the importance of striking the right balance between protecting legislators' legitimate functions and holding them accountable for potential criminal conduct. The final decision of the larger bench will have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) and the broader principles of democracy, transparency, and accountability in India's legislative process.

SUPREME COURT ON GRANTING IMMUNITY FOR BRIBERY:-

The current case before the Supreme Court revolves around the critical question of whether the legal immunity enjoyed by parliamentarians extends to prosecution for demanding or taking a bribe. Here's an analysis of the case and the Supreme Court's recent actions:

Case Background:-

• The case originated from a plea filed by Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), who was accused of accepting a bribe in exchange for her vote in the Rajya Sabha elections of 2012.
• A complaint was filed with the Chief Election Commissioner of India, prompting a CBI probe.
• The CBI filed a chargesheet against Sita Soren, accusing her of various offenses, including bribery, criminal conspiracy, and criminal misconduct by a public servant.
• Soren sought to quash the chargesheet and the criminal proceedings against her, arguing that she was protected by the immunity granted under Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
• The Jharkhand High Court rejected her plea in 2014, leading her to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Actions:-

• • In 2014, when Sita Soren approached the Supreme Court, a two-judge Bench noted the "substantial and general public importance" of the issue and decided that it should be referred to a larger Bench of three judges.
  • On March 7, 2019, a three-judge Bench, led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, took up the appeal and observed that the Jharkhand High Court's judgment was connected to the 1988 Narasimha Rao verdict.
  • In the 1988 case (PV Narasimha Rao case), the Supreme Court had ruled that parliamentarians are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution when it pertains to their speech and votes in the legislature.
  • The recent development occurred when a 5-judge Bench, comprising Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, along with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, decided to reconsider the correctness of the 1998 Narasimha Rao case judgment.
  • The Supreme Court stated that the purpose of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) is to ensure that members of Parliament and state legislatures can carry out their duties freely without fearing legal consequences for their speech or voting decisions.
  • The Court emphasized that the objective is not to grant legislators higher privileges in terms of immunity from general criminal law.

1998 Narasimha Rao Ruling:-

• • The PV Narasimha Rao case, which the Supreme Court is referring to, dates back to 1993 and was connected to the JMM bribery case involving Shibu Soren, who is also the father-in-law of Sita Soren.
  • In this case, the majority view held that protection under Article 105(2) or 194(2) and the immunity granted could extend to cases concerning bribery for making a speech or vote in a particular manner in the legislature.
  • While the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offense, it stressed that a narrow interpretation of constitutional provisions might impede parliamentary participation and debate.
  • Consequently, the top court in 1998 quashed the case against the JMM MPs, citing immunity under Article 105(2), effectively protecting Sita Soren's father-in-law, Shibu Soren, from criminal prosecution.

In essence, the current Supreme Court case revolves around reevaluating the scope of legislative immunity, particularly in cases involving bribery related to speeches or votes in the legislature. The Court's decision will have significant implications for the interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) and the broader principles of democracy, transparency, and accountability in India's legislative process.

CONCLUSION:-

In conclusion, the issue of parliamentary immunity for MPs and MLAs concerning bribes for speeches or votes in legislatures is a complex one. While legislators enjoy certain immunities to perform their roles without fear of reprisal, these privileges are not a shield for criminal conduct. Case law and legal provisions make it clear that bribery is not protected under legislative immunity. Ensuring accountability, maintaining transparency, and upholding the rule of law are essential components of a healthy democracy. Striking the right balance between protecting legislators' legitimate functions and holding them accountable for wrongdoing is crucial to preserving the integrity of democratic institutions.