Summary
A five-judge Bench referred the correctness of the majority ruling in P.V. Narasimha Rao on legislative immunity and bribery to seven judges. The issue arose in an MLA’s challenge to prosecution for allegedly accepting a bribe in a Rajya Sabha election. The Court identified prima facie doubts about protecting criminal liability independent of a speech or vote, the anomalous distinction based on performance of the bargain, and when bribery is complete. It did not finally decide immunity or the criminal appeal.
Issues
- Whether the correctness of P.V. Narasimha Rao arose despite the parties disputing only its application.
- Whether the majority interpretation of legislative immunity warranted reconsideration by seven judges.
Provisions considered
- Articles 105(2) and 194(2), Constitution of IndiaThe parallel speech-and-vote immunities raised a question whether protection extends to bribery liability arising independently of legislative conduct. The Bench expressed prima facie doubts and sought reconsideration by seven judges, without finally resolving the scope of immunity. (¶¶ 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27)
Held
- The correctness of the earlier majority ruling arose because both the High Court’s reasoning and the appellant’s defence relied on it. The parties’ agreement not to challenge that ruling did not eliminate the issue from the appeal. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Judicial discipline permits a Bench of equal strength to doubt an earlier ruling and request consideration by a larger Bench. The five-judge Bench therefore examined whether reconsideration was prima facie warranted, rather than overruling the earlier five-judge decision itself. (¶¶ 13, 24, 26, 27)
- Prima facie, the immunity serves fearless legislative speech and voting rather than protection from independent criminal liability. The Bench also identified the anomaly of making protection turn on performance of an alleged bribery bargain and the minority’s analysis that bribery can be complete upon acceptance or agreement, without performance. These were reasons for reference, not final answers. (¶¶ 19, 20, 24, 25, 26)
Result
Registry requested to place the papers before the Chief Justice for constitution of a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the majority view in P.V. Narasimha Rao. Criminal appeal not finally disposed of by this order.