SITA SOREN V UNION OF INDIA- A CASE RELATED TO LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY

Ayush Priya,

S.S. Khanna Girl's Degree College, UOA

Appellant

Sita Soren

Respondent

Union of India

Lawyers

Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia

Case Number

Crl.A. 451/2019

Case Decided

4th March 2024

Introduction

This judgement is related to legislative immunity for lawmakers facing bribery charges. In the case of Sita Soren vs. Union of India, the seven-judge bench overruled the 27-year-old judgement in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State.

Brief Facts

Sita Soren, from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly is appellant in this case. She was accused of accepting a bribe. An independent candidate had allegedly asked her to cast a vote in the Rajya Sabha Elections in his favour. She accepts the bribe but due to an open ballot system she would not be able to cast her vote to the candidate to whom she had taken the bribe. The vote is given for a candidate of JMM.

After that criminal charges had been filed against her under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. She approached the High Court of Jharkhand seeking to quash the criminal charges filed against her.

Soren argued that she enjoyed the protection under Article 194(2) of the Constitution as an MLA. 

The High Court, in his order, mentioned that a direct nexus between voting and the bribe did not exist since the exact action did not take place for which she was bribed. The HC basically relied on a previous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, 1988. This case held that as a member of the legislative assembly, parliamentary privileges are given under Article 105(2), which gives immunity to lawmakers for their speech and votes in the house. In 2014, the appellant moved to the Supreme Court to grant a special leave to appeal against the High Court order on the grounds of a broad interpretation of Article 194(2), which extends the privilege to members of the state legislature.

Key Issues

1) Does a legislator enjoy immunity from prosecution under Article 105 (2) or Article 194(2) of the Constitution for accepting bribes to vote in Parliament or an Assembly.

2) Whether the offence of bribery is complete once the bribe is accepted, without the commission of the act for which it is given? (related to Section 7[3] of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1988)

Counsel Arguments about correctness of Narasimha Rao Case,1988

a) Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, arguing in favour of the appellant he argued that the Narasimha Rao judgement was carefully considered and well-reasoned. To overrule that judgement is unwarranted. He referred to some of the cases to support his arguments, like Shah Faesal v. Union of India (2020) or Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1965), where certain conditions must be fulfilled to overrule any judgement, such as the precedential value or nature of the error in the judgment, etc. According to him, privileges and immunities are not contrasted with the rule of law. Through this statement, he responded to the dissenting opinion of Justice Agarwal in the Narasimha Rao case. The Constitution has left the factor of political morality in the hands of Parliament. Article 105(2) talks about MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee. Ramachandran argued that while interpreting the expression of the above section, Justice Agarwal erred. The meaning of 'in respect of' is to mean 'arising out of'. He said that the section is narrowly interpreted by the justice; immunity from liability would only be given when a speech is made or a vote is cast. Basically, he supported the majority of the Narasimha Rao case, which held that parliamentarians enjoy constitutional immunity against criminal prosecution related to speech and votes in the House.

b) Advocate Patwalia (amicus curiae) mentioned that immunity is granted to protect the integrity of the legislative process, not to protect legislators from criminal laws. He contended that the dissenting view of Justice Agarwal was correct. He argued that the offence of bribery is complete in itself when legislators agree or accept the money to act in a certain way. Immunity doesn't extend to any acts prior to a speech or vote. And the interpretation is not narrow. Similarly, Advocate Sankaranaryanan, who was appearing as an intervenor, was against the argument of Ramachandran. He contended that a broad interpretation of 'any' in Article 105(2) would bring anything under the purview of immunity. He further stated that it is not the intention of the law to grant immunity to a person who would be guilty on the streets but not in parliament.

Appellant Arguments

a) It is based on the contention that the commission of an offence prior to voting or speaking is protected by immunity.

b) Her counsel argued that bribery cannot be separated from all criminal offences, which are mentioned in Articles 105 and 194.

c) The counsel gave an example of hate speech within the parliament, it is protected, and if a conspiracy arises to engage in that hate speech before it is delivered, then it is also shielded by parliamentary immunity.

d) In response to the respondent argument about the distinction between a vote in the Rajya Sabha and that of immunity, the counsel contended that the Rajya Sabha election is mandated by the constitution and enjoys the same privilege.

Respondent Arguments

a) They argued with the help of a case, which is State of Kerala v. Ajith K (2021). It states that 'cloak of immunity' can only be extended after differentiating activities in the legislature, whether they are legitimate or legislative. The Narasimha Rao case extended this immunity to illegitimate functions that affect the parliamentary and legislative processes.

 b) The next contention raised is that the opinion of ‘nexus’ for the purpose of immunity is vague, as if it were accepted, then the crimes under the laws, including the PMLA, or Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, would be protected. They favoured the 'integral part test' laid down by minority opinion in the Narasimha Rao case. One of the respondents argued that legislators privileges should begin and terminate inside the House of Parliament. It means any criminal act outside the house would be punishable, whether the nexus between crime and conduct in the legislature is present or not.

c) They contended that the minority view in the Narasimha Rao case should be moderated as it gives special importance to antecedent conduct. They pointed out that these privileges must not be misused. It has been observed by them that the two articles (Articles 105 and 194) only give protection to votes and speeches in furtherance of matters pertaining to the legislative agenda. Therefore, no question of immunity should be raised in the present case (Sita Soren v. Union of India), as elections in the Rajya Sabha are an independent process.

d) They argued that for a healthy democracy, it is important to reject the idea of immunity for bribes. And the Narasimha Rao case was flawed because it made the performance of a promise or any action the guiding principle to extend immunity.

Judgement by the Supreme Court

A seven-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on March 4, 2024, held that lawmakers do not have parliamentary immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) for the acts of bribery. They overruled the 3:2 Constitution Bench decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998). The Bench held that the bribe was an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This section deals with the offence relating to a public servant being bribed. The court clearly said that legislators are considered public servants. So, in this case, Sita Soren is liable for bribery at the moment she accepts the bribe, and it is immaterial whether she cast a vote or not. In Narasimha Rao's case, a legislator enjoys immunity when they accept a bribe, but they are prosecuted if they do not act according to the bribe. Thus, the bench held that this case has a 'paradoxical outcome'. The Court believes that bribery, as an immunity for parliamentarians, erodes parliamentary democracy. The Court also laid down a two-fold test for enjoying the immunity of legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). First, when the collective function of the legislature is involved, and second, when the act in question must be related to the discharging of the function of the house. This applies to the elections of members of the legislature, Rajya Sabha, President, and Vice President.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has correctly decided the case, and the constitutional bench approach aligns with the preventive intent of the law, which tries to address a long-standing public issue related to the democratic set-up and development of the country. In this judgement, the court mainly focuses on public officials accepting bribes, which is not only related to lawmakers but to any public servant, and somehow it focuses on the corruption part to ensure that this problem can be holistically addressed. The court’s decision in this case also affirms that privileges and immunities that are given to members of Parliament should not be treated as exemptions from the general law of the land. The two articles (105, 194) protect the freedom of speech of members of the house for effective democratic deliberations, which helps in reasoned law-making. The two-fold test given by the court is also helpful to interpret the provision better.