Summary
The Court held that a legislator cannot claim constitutional immunity from prosecution for bribery connected with a vote or speech. The offence is complete on accepting or attempting to obtain an undue advantage, whether or not the legislator later performs the agreed act.
Issues
- Do Articles 105(2) and 194(2) immunise a legislator from criminal prosecution for accepting or agreeing to accept a bribe in connection with a vote or speech?
- Does the bribery offence depend on the legislator casting the vote or making the speech as agreed?
Provisions considered
- Articles 105(2) and 194(2), Constitution of IndiaLegislative privilege does not immunise a member from prosecution for bribery. A claim of privilege by an individual member must be tied to the collective functioning of the House and necessary to the discharge of the member’s essential duties; criminal prosecution and House discipline operate in distinct spheres. (¶¶ 91, 111, 113, 123, 188.3, 188.4, 188.9)
- Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The offence is made out by obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain an undue advantage with the required intention; performance of the public duty for which it was given is unnecessary. The earlier text likewise treated acceptance or agreement to accept gratification as sufficient. (¶¶ 116, 117, 119, 120, 123)
Held
- An individual legislator claiming privilege must show that it is tethered to the collective functioning of the House and that it is necessary to discharge the legislator’s essential duties. (¶ 91)
- Articles 105(2) and 194(2) do not immunise a member from prosecution for bribery: receiving or agreeing to receive illegal gratification is not in respect of the essential function of speaking or voting. Criminal prosecution and the House’s disciplinary jurisdiction have distinct purposes and may both apply. (¶¶ 110, 111, 113, 188.4, 188.7, 188.9)
- The bribery offence crystallises upon acceptance or attempted acceptance of the undue advantage and does not depend on whether the legislator casts the promised vote or makes the promised speech. (¶¶ 117, 118, 123, 125, 188.11)
- The majority ruling in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) granting immunity to a legislator who accepted a bribe and then voted or spoke as agreed was overruled. (¶¶ 188.1, 188.4, 188.12)
Result
The reference was answered and the criminal appeal disposed of. The merits of the alleged offence and the trial were not decided.