Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Overturning Legislative Immunity images
Supreme Court image

Legislative Immunity – The pronouncement delivered by the Supreme Court on Monday stands as a pivotal moment regarding one of the most closely examined facets of the Parliament: lawmakers receiving inducements in return for their voting or orations delivered during a parliamentary session in a specific manner. Currently, Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) no longer possess any shield against prosecution.

The Specific Article Under Scrutiny – Legislative Immunity

This ruling emerges subsequent to the Supreme Court’s reversal of its 1998 verdict in the P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State case, concerning articles 105(2) and 194(2). Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution accords the privilege of immunity to Members of Parliament (MPs) from prosecution if they accept inducements to articulate views or cast votes within the House. Similarly, Article 194(2) extends the same immunity from prosecution to Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).

The Origin of the Verdict

Verdict img

The genesis of this ruling dates back to the tenure of P.V. Narasimha Rao in the 1990s. The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), a political entity in the state of Jharkhand, found itself embroiled in controversy when the party’s leader, Shibu Soren, along with several other members, faced accusations of accepting bribes to vote against a no-confidence motion targeted at the government of P.V. Narasimha Rao. A subset of judges from a Constitutional Bench opined that the immunity granted by Articles 105(2) and 194(2) does not apply when bribery allegations surface. However, the majority of judges contended that despite the severity of the offense, an overly critical stance must not lead to a narrow interpretation of constitutional provisions, as this could potentially impede the guarantee of “parliamentary participation and debate.”

The resurgence of the 1998 ruling unfolded coincidentally in 2012 when Sita Soren, the daughter-in-law of Shibu Soren and a JMM member, faced accusations of voting for a particular candidate during Rajya Sabha elections that transpired 12 years prior. The Central Bureau of Investigation intervened and subsequently filed a chargesheet against her. Despite her plea asserting protection under Article 194(2), the Jharkhand High Court dismissed her plea, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legislative Immunity image

Just two years later, on September 23, 2014, a two-judge bench in the Supreme Court referred the case to a bench comprising an additional judge. In 2019, the then Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, alongside two other judges, acknowledged the relevance of the 1998 verdict in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case. The verdict was subjected to scrutiny due to its narrow majority (3:2) and thus was referred to a larger bench, with the recognition that it held “substantial and general public importance.”

On September 20, 2023, suspecting the validity of the majority view in the 1998 case, a five-judge bench led by the current Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, referred the matter to a seven-judge bench.

The Pronouncement of the Supreme Court

The Pronouncement of the Supreme Court image

During the proceedings, petitioners contended that overturning a precedent established in 1998 would contravene the legal doctrine of stare decisis, which mandates judges to adhere to previous rulings when adjudicating similar cases. This contention was countered by asserting that stare decisis is not an inflexible legal doctrine and that a larger bench possesses the authority to reconsider prior judgments without exceeding its judicial boundaries. In the words of CJI Chandrachud, the verdict authored by him states, “The majority judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao (supra), which provides immunity from prosecution to a legislator who allegedly engages in bribery for voting or speaking, carries significant implications for public interest, integrity in public life, and parliamentary democracy. There is a serious risk of perpetuating an error if the decision is not reconsidered.”

The apex court further argued that legislative privileges must align with constitutional parameters. It equated this issue with corruption, asserting that corruption and bribery among legislators are undermining the foundation of the country’s democracy. In response to petitioners arguing that the Court’s intervention was unnecessary as the House itself could treat charges against a member as a breach of privilege, the Supreme Court maintained that both the Court and the House retain the authority to adjudicate such matters independently, without excluding the jurisdiction of either.

One of the key points emphasized by the Supreme Court in its verdict was that the act of accepting a bribe constitutes an offense irrespective of whether the legislator fulfills the task assigned to them in exchange for the bribe. Lastly, the Court clarified the principles outlined in the current verdict regarding legislative privileges.

law img


The recent verdict delivered by the Supreme Court concerning the legislative privileges of MPs and MLAs signifies a significant shift in Parliament that could potentially foster a more robust parliamentary environment and set a precedent for the Indian judiciary to address further ethically ambiguous laws in India.

FAQs: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Legislative Privileges

  1. What prompted the Supreme Court to revisit the issue of legislative privileges?
    • The Supreme Court revisited the issue following controversies surrounding bribery allegations against lawmakers, particularly in the context of the 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao case.
  2. How does the recent ruling affect Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs)?
    • The ruling removes any immunity previously enjoyed by MPs and MLAs from prosecution in cases involving bribery allegations related to their parliamentary duties.
  3. Was the 1998 judgment the only precedent considered during the judicial proceedings?
    • No, the court also examined various legal precedents, including the doctrine of stare decisis, which obligates judges to adhere to prior rulings.
  4. What were the key arguments presented during the proceedings?
    • Arguments revolved around the interpretation of constitutional provisions granting immunity to lawmakers, the implications for public interest and parliamentary democracy, and the court’s jurisdiction over such matters.
  5. How does the ruling address concerns about corruption in legislative bodies?
    • The Supreme Court equated legislative bribery with corruption and emphasized the erosion of democratic foundations due to such practices.
  6. Can lawmakers still claim immunity from prosecution for actions undertaken within the parliamentary context?
    • No, the ruling clarifies that accepting a bribe constitutes an offense regardless of whether the legislator fulfills the task designated in exchange for the bribe.
  7. What are the potential implications of the ruling on future parliamentary conduct?
    • The ruling could lead to a more stringent approach towards ethical governance and accountability within legislative bodies.
  8. Does the ruling have broader implications beyond India’s parliamentary system?
    • Yes, the ruling sets a precedent for judicial interventions in addressing morally ambiguous laws and practices within legislative frameworks globally.
  9. How does the ruling contribute to promoting transparency and integrity in public life?
    • By removing immunity for lawmakers involved in bribery, the ruling underscores the importance of upholding ethical standards and accountability in public office.
  10. Can the ruling be appealed or overturned in the future?
    • While legal challenges are possible, the Supreme Court’s ruling carries significant weight and is unlikely to be overturned without substantial legal grounds.

Read more : Unveiling the Grounds for Divorce in India: What You Need to Know

Read more : The Power of Alimony: A Comprehensive Guide to Divorce in India

Read more : Guardianship Dynamics: Navigating Custody and Welfare of MinorsGuardianship Dynamics: Navigating Custody and Welfare of Minors

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *