Lawmakers in parliament and state legislatures usually are not immune from prosecution in bribery instances, the Supreme Court docket mentioned at this time in a landmark verdict by a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

The decision put aside a 1998 judgment through which a five-member Structure bench had upheld the immunity for lawmakers in instances the place MPs or MLAs take bribes for a speech or a vote within the Home.

Bribery, the courtroom mentioned, just isn’t protected by parliamentary privileges and the interpretation of the 1998 verdict is opposite to Articles 105 and 194 of the Structure. These two Articles present elected representatives authorized immunity from prosecution to allow them to work with out concern.

“We disagree with the judgment in PV Narasimha (case). The judgment in PV Narasimha which grants immunity to legislator for allegedly bribery for casting a vote or speech has broad ramifications and overruled,” the Chief Justice of India mentioned.

The PV Narasimha Rao case had come up in reference to a no-confidence movement in opposition to his authorities in July 1993. The minority authorities had survived with a slim margin – 265 votes in favour and 251 in opposition to.

A 12 months later, nonetheless, a scandal emerged and allegations surfaced that legislators of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha had taken bribes to vote in assist of the PV Narasimha Rao authorities. In 1998, the Supreme Court docket held that the lawmakers’ immunity from prosecution prolonged to their votes and speeches contained in the Home.

The courtroom at this time mentioned a declare for immunity in such conditions fails to go the check of being essential to discharge legislative capabilities.

“We maintain that bribery just isn’t protected by Parliamentary privileges. Corruption and bribery by legislators destroy the functioning of Indian Parliamentary democracy. An MLA taking a bribe to vote in Rajya Sabha elections can also be liable beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act,” the bench mentioned.

The PV Narasimha judgment, the Chief Justice mentioned, leads to a “paradoxical state of affairs” through which a legislator who accepts a bribe and votes accordingly is protected whereas a legislator who votes independently regardless of taking a bribe is prosecuted.