MPs, MLAs Lose Immunity In Bribes-For-Vote Cases As Supreme Court Overrules Narasimha Rao Verdict

A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that elected representatives cannot claim immunity against allegations of bribery for casting a vote or making a speech in the legislature, overruling a previous 1998 judgment of the top court in the PV Narsimha Rao case.

Legislators cannot claim immunity for taking bribes because a member indulging in bribery indulges in a criminal act, which is not essential for the function of casting a vote or giving a speech in the legislature, the top court has held.

“Such a claim for immunity fails to fulfill the test of whether such immunity is necessary to discharge legislative functions,” Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said while reading the verdict of the seven-judge bench. “Corruption and bribery by MLAs/MPs erodes faith in the parliamentary process.” 

The immunity granted to legislators seeks to sustain an environment in which debate and deliberation takes place within the legislature. This purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a particular manner because of an act of bribery, the court said.

The top court pointed out that that the PV Narsimha Rao judgment resulted in a paradoxical situation wherein a legislator accepting a bribe is conferred with immunity if it is followed through by voting in the agreed direction. However, if the bribe is accepted and the vote is not cast in the agreed direction, no immunity would lie.

Corruption and bribery are destructive of the deliberative ideas of the constitution and it is not necessary that the action for which the bribe has been taken is actually performed, the court ruled.

At the centre of this case lay the issue of whether MPs or MLAs can claim legislative immunity against an allegation of bribery for making a speech or casting a vote in a particular manner in the legislatures.

In 1998, a five-judge bench of the top court held that MPs or MLAs would be immune from prosecution in such cases in the exercise of their parliamentary privileges. This ruling famously came to be known as the PV Narsimha Rao judgment.

However, in 2023, a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud questioned the correctness the principle laid down in the PV Narsimha Rao ruling and deemed it appropriate to refer it to a bench of seven judges.

The top court had observed that the fundamental premise behind granting legislative immunity to MPs or MLAs was so that they could be free to express their views on the floor of the House or to cast their votes without fear of consequences. However, the immunity does not appear to extend against criminal proceedings which may arise independently of the exercise of the rights and duties as MPs or MLAs, the court said.