Case Brief: P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State

Case Name	P. V. Narsimha Rao v. State
Citation	(1998) 4 SCC 626.
Court	Supreme Court of India
Bench	S.C. Agrawal, G.N. Ray, A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha and S. Rajendra Babu
Appellants	P.V. Narsimha Rao
Respondents	State (CBI/SPE)
Decided on	17 April, 1998

Introduction 

Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution provides members of Parliament (MPs) with immunity from prosecution regarding anything spoken or any vote cast in Parliament or any committee. A similar provision is found in Article 194(2) for members of legislative assemblies. In a landmark judgment related to these constitutional provisions, a group of parliamentarians was granted immunity from prosecution on charges of bribery because the alleged actions were deemed to be in respect of a parliamentary vote. This case served to reinforce and strengthen the immunity granted to parliamentarians.

Brief facts 

In the 1991 Lok Sabha elections, the Congress party secured a significant victory, resulting in the establishment of the government with P.V. Narasimha Rao assuming the role of Prime Minister. However, the party encountered a formidable obstacle during the July 1993 monsoon session of the Lok Sabha when a ‘No Confidence Motion’ was set in motion against the existing government led by P.V. Narasimha Rao. Despite being in a minority position, the party allegedly resorted to offering inducements to certain members of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) in an attempt to sway their votes against the motion. Despite their minority status, the party managed to thwart the motion, with 251 members lending their support and 265 opposing it.

Subsequent to the motion’s defeat, the party regained its position of authority. However, on February 28, 1996, Shri Ravindra Kumar of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha lodged a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), asserting that certain Members of Parliament had been bribed during the July 1993 no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha. Acting on this information, the CBI registered a complaint against JMM members Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi, and Shailendra Mahto under Section 13(2), Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Essentially, this led to the initiation of a criminal prosecution against both the recipients and the givers of bribes within the parliamentary setting.

The case was taken up by a special judge in Delhi. The individual facing charges submitted a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking the dismissal of the charges, but the High Court rejected the petition. Consequently, an appeal was made to the Supreme Court of India, which then referred the matter to a constitutional bench for further deliberation and examination.

Issues before the Court

1. Whether a member of parliament can assert immunity from prosecution in a criminal court for bribery charges related to parliamentary proceedings under Articles 105(1) and 105(2)?
2. Whether or not the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 consider a member of parliament as a public servant?

Arguments of the Parties  

Arguments of the Petitioner 

The legal representative for the Appellant argued that the scope of immunity provided by Article 105(2) should be construed broadly to enable Members to exercise their voting rights without apprehension of legal repercussions. The assertion was made that, under this immunity, the actions of a Member of Parliament offering or accepting a bribe in connection with a vote should not be deemed a criminal offense. Furthermore, both the party offering the bribe and the one receiving it would be immune from prosecution. Additionally, it was contended that charges of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code or any offenses outlined in the 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act would not be applicable to them. The legal counsel drew support from the precedent set by the Court of Queen’s Bench in the Wason case and referenced a judgment from the Supreme Court of the United States in Johnson to bolster this argument.

Arguments of the Respondent 

The Attorney General contended that the existing parliamentary privileges enjoyed by members of parliament lack clear legal guidelines regarding their applicability to specific instances. This argument drew support from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brewster. According to the Attorney General, the act of members accepting bribes constitutes a breach of these privileges.

The primary purpose of the immunity granted under Article 105(2) is to safeguard the independence of individual legislators, essential for the effective operation of the parliamentary democracy established by the Constitution. An interpretation of Article 105(2) that allows Members of Parliament to claim immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery offenses related to their actions or votes in Parliament or its committees would place them above the law. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with the principles of parliamentary democracy and undermines the Rule of Law. It is well-established that, in interpreting constitutional provisions, the court should adopt a construction that strengthens the foundational features and basic structure of the Constitution.

Mr. Sibal, the appellant’s counsel, argued for a parallel procedure to that which prevents criminal prosecution against Judges of High Courts or the Supreme Court without first consulting the Chief Justice of India. Similarly, he proposed that no criminal prosecution should be initiated against a Member of Parliament without prior consultation with the Speaker. This aligns with the requirement for prior sanction from the competent authority to prosecute a public servant.

Additionally, it was asserted that while Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, providing certain rights, is subject to limitations, Article 105, which confers parallel rights on parliamentarians, is considered absolute. This claim is made on the basis that Article 105 is only subject to the restrictions outlined in Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.

Decision 

The judgment rendered by the Five-Judge bench, with a majority split of 3:2, is rooted in the interpretation of Articles 105(1) and 105(2). The court, adopting a literal interpretation, expanded the scope of these articles, affirming that Members of Parliament (MPs) are immune from any legal proceedings concerning their votes in Parliament. Notably, this immunity does not extend to members who offered bribes in this specific case. The court emphasized that, according to the literal interpretation of the relevant Articles, JMM members who accepted bribes and voted against the motion were not found guilty of corruption. However, a member who accepted a bribe but did not cast a vote was held liable for prosecution.

In a significant development, former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was acquitted of all charges in the JMM bribery case. The special court in Delhi delivered this judgment, citing insufficient evidence to support the charges against Rao and others. This landmark verdict marked the first time a former Indian Prime Minister was acquitted in a corruption case, impacting Indian politics and testing the judiciary’s independence in handling high-profile corruption cases. Despite the acquittal, the case remains part of the public record, generating ongoing discussions and debates in Indian media and political circles.

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court affirmed that MPs have immunity under Article 105(2), shielding them from criminal prosecution for actions taken within the parliamentary context. The court ruled that any criminal liability on accused MPs would fall outside its jurisdiction, as the alleged actions were in connection with votes given in the Lok Sabha, invoking the privileges of the House under Article 195.

Furthermore, the court clarified that Members of the Lok Sabha, holding no official office, are not considered public servants under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). Even if they were deemed public servants, the court argued that the PCA would not apply, as there is no competent authority to remove Lok Sabha Members from office under Section 19(1)(c) of the PCA.

In a dissenting judgment, it was contended that Article 105(2) does not grant immunity to MPs from criminal prosecution for accepting or offering bribes related to their votes in Parliament. The dissenting view argued that accepting a bribe is not inherent to the role of an MP and does not qualify as part of their parliamentary or official activities protected by Article 105(2). This perspective criticized the broad interpretation of “in respect of,” cautioning against potential misuse of immunity based on the manner in which an MP speaks or votes.

The court reasoned that MPs, as public servants, hold offices with public responsibilities and duties, thereby affirming their classification as public servants. This decision introduced accountability for MPs and was lauded as a significant ruling, particularly in the context of Article 16, which mandates non-discrimination in public office appointments. The majority, with a split of 3:2, concluded that an MP is liable for criminal prosecution, even for offenses requiring the sanction of authority.

Analysis 

This case carried significant implications for parliamentary privileges in India. Parliamentary privileges encompass specific rights and immunities granted to Members of Parliament to facilitate the effective discharge of their duties. A crucial aspect of these privileges is the immunity from criminal prosecution for utterances or actions undertaken within the context of parliamentary proceedings. In the JMM bribery case, certain accused individuals, who were serving as Members of Parliament at the time, argued that the charges against them fell under parliamentary privilege, shielding them from prosecution for bribery and corruption. However, the court dismissed this argument, asserting that the charges pertained to actions not covered by parliamentary privilege.

Consequently, the JMM bribery case clarified the extent of parliamentary privilege in India, affirming that Members of Parliament are not exempt from prosecution for criminal offenses, including bribery and corruption, committed outside the realm of parliamentary proceedings. The case was viewed as a positive step towards fostering accountability and transparency in Indian politics, exemplifying that public officials, including Members of Parliament, can be held answerable for their conduct. The verdict underscored the principle that no individual is exempt from the law, emphasizing that all citizens, regardless of their standing or position, must be subject to the same legal standards and procedures.

Conclusion 

This case holds immense significance for the political trajectory of the nation, eliciting a diverse response from the general public. The court’s ruling, designating a Member of Parliament as a public servant, is regarded as a positive development. Additionally, empowering the Chairman and Speaker of the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha, respectively, with sanctioning authority for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is seen as a constructive step.

However, the majority’s decision, introducing a distinction between those receiving bribes and those offering them, is criticized as flawed. A critical re-evaluation of this court decision is deemed necessary. The majority’s verdict is perceived as diverging from the constitutional ideals and aspirations, prompting a call for reconsideration.

The reasoning put forth by the minority aligns with the current national political landscape, characterized by a lack of a stable government. There is a pressing need for a competent Bench to promptly rectify and overturn this verdict, considering its potential implications.

Reference 

http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/46GQ02mG

https://www.juscorpus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/63.-Sonakshi-Singla.pdf