Supreme Court Verdict: MPs and MLAs Lose Immunity from Prosecution for Bribery in Legislative Votes
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court of India has overturned its previous ruling and declared that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) cannot claim immunity from prosecution for accepting bribes in connection with their legislative duties. The decision, delivered by a seven-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, marks a significant shift in the legal landscape concerning the accountability of lawmakers in matters of bribery within the legislative process.
Background:
The genesis of this legal debate traces back to the infamous JMM bribery scandal of 1993, wherein MPs were alleged to have accepted bribes to influence their votes in a crucial no-confidence motion against the government. The subsequent 1998 ruling in the PV Narasimha Rao case granted immunity to legislators from prosecution for bribery related to their parliamentary or assembly duties. However, this immunity has now been challenged and overturned by the recent Supreme Court verdict.
1. Overruling Previous Judgment:
The seven-judge bench unanimously disagreed with the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment, which conferred immunity on MPs and MLAs from prosecution for bribery in connection with their parliamentary votes or speeches. This decision signifies a departure from the earlier interpretation of legislative privileges.
2. Reconsideration of Immunity:
The court revisited the issue of legislative immunity 25 years after the JMM bribery scandal, emphasizing the need to examine whether lawmakers should be shielded from criminal prosecution for actions involving bribery within the legislative domain.
3. Wide Ramifications:
The verdict acknowledges the wide-ranging implications of granting immunity to lawmakers for bribery, highlighting the importance of upholding the rule of law and preventing abuse of power within the legislative framework.
4. Public Importance:
The case, brought to the forefront by the appeal of Sita Soren, a JMM MLA implicated in the bribery scandal, was deemed to have substantial public importance, prompting the Supreme Court to review its earlier stance on legislative immunity.
Implications and Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a significant step towards ensuring accountability and integrity in the functioning of the legislative bodies. By disallowing immunity for lawmakers accused of bribery, the judiciary reaffirms its commitment to upholding ethical standards and combating 
corruption in governance. This landmark verdict sets a precedent for fostering transparency and trust in the democratic process, thereby reinforcing the foundational principles of justice and equality before the law.
Overall, the decision underscores the imperative of holding elected representatives accountable for their actions, thereby safeguarding the morality of the polity and promoting a culture of integrity and responsibility in public service.
+ There are no comments
Add yours