Parliamentary Privilege or Immunity
Source: Hindustan Times
GS II: Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary Ministries and Departments of the Government; pressure groups and formal/informal associations and their role in the Polity;
GS III: Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability, e-governance- applications, models, successes, limitations, and potential; citizens charters, transparency & accountability and institutional and other measures
Overview
- News in Brief
- Details of Verdict
- About JMM bribery case judgment of 1998
- Parliamentary Privilege or Immunity
Why in the News?
A seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court declared that parliamentary privilege or immunity will not protect legislators who take bribes to vote or speak in Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies from criminal prosecution.
News in Brief
- Privileges and immunities are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general law of the land.
- Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the basic foundation of Indian parliamentary democracy.
- The unanimous verdict overruled a 25-year-old majority view of the Supreme Court, laid down in the infamous JMM bribery case judgment of 1998.
Details of Verdict
- The legislator will face criminal prosecution whether or not he makes a speech or votes in favour of the bribe-giver.
- The offence of bribery is complete on the acceptance of the money or on the agreement to accept money being concludederdict
- freedom of speech and expression, which includes voting in the House, and attendant immunities granted to legislators under Article 105 and Article 194 did not extend to giving or taking bribes.
- The purpose of Article 105 and 194 is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner because of an act of bribery.
Article 194 Powers, privileges, etc., of the House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof
About JMM bribery case judgment of 1998
The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) bribery case of 1998 was a significant political scandal in India that involved allegations of bribery in exchange for votes during a crucial no-confidence motion in the Indian Parliament. Here are the key facts and details surrounding the case:
Background
- In July 1993, during the tenure of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, the JMM withdrew support from the ruling Congress government.
- To secure the government’s stability, certain Congress leaders allegedly paid bribes to JMM members of parliament to vote in favour of the government during a no-confidence motion.
Investigation and Trial
- The case came to light when a sting operation conducted by a news magazine revealed footage of JMM MPs allegedly accepting bribes in exchange for their votes.
- Following this, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) launched an investigation into the matter.
- In 1996, the Supreme Court of India ordered a fresh trial in the case after declaring the earlier acquittal of the accused null and void.
- The trial court subsequently convicted several individuals, including three former chief ministers of Jharkhand: Shibu Soren, Suraj Mandal, and Simon Marandi.
Judgment
- In 1998, the trial court pronounced its judgment, finding the accused guilty of accepting bribes to influence their votes in the no-confidence motion.
- Shibu Soren, who was the chief accused in the case, was sentenced to three years in prison along with a hefty fine.
- Verdict in 1998, a five-judge SC bench quashed the case against the JMM MPs, citing immunity under Article 105(2).
- It allowed legislators to claim immunity from prosecution in bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Impact: The JMM bribery case had significant repercussions in Indian politics. It highlighted the issue of corruption and the unethical practices prevalent in the political system. The judgment served as a reminder of the importance of upholding democratic principles and the rule of law.
Article 105: Constitution of India Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.
(2) 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, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
(3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
(4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of Parliament.
Parliamentary Privilege or Immunity
Under this system, legislators are shielded from legal liability for decisions they make or remarks they make while doing their official duties.
- Article 105 (2) of the Indian Constitution confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee.
- Similarly, Article 194 (2) grants protection to MLAs in the context of state legislatures.
- These provisions are designed to allow legislators to express their views openly without concern for legal consequences.
Way Forward
- The JMM bribery case underscores the need for transparency and accountability in political processes.
- It emphasizes the importance of strict enforcement of anti-corruption laws and the need for electoral reforms to prevent such incidents from recurring.
- Additionally, it serves as a reminder to citizens and political leaders alike to uphold ethical standards in governance and promote integrity in public life.
Daily Current Affairs: Click Here