Syllabus
GS Paper 2 – Parliament and State legislatures—structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges and issues arising out of these.
GS Paper 4 – Probity in Governance: Concept of public service; Philosophical basis of governance and probity; Information sharing and transparency in government, Right to Information, Codes of Ethics, Codes of Conduct, Citizen’s Charters, Work culture, Quality of service delivery, Utilization of public funds, challenges of corruption.
Applications where to apply?
When asked about
– Conduct of business, powers & privileges and issues
– Moral and Ethical conduct of members of Parliament
– Ethics & Transparency Reforms in Lok Sabha
Context
The Supreme Court held that legislators do not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery charges in connection with their speech and votes made in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
Source
The Hindu | Editorial dated 6th March 2024
Deprivileging bribe
The Supreme Court ruled on March 4th that lawmakers are not immune from criminal prosecution for bribery charges related to their speeches and votes in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. This decision overturns the court’s previous 1998 judgment in P V Narasimha Rao v State (CBI/Spe), where a five-judge bench, by a 3-2 majority, had granted immunity to legislators from prosecution for accepting such bribes.
Parliamentary Privileges
The Indian Constitution grants special rights, immunities, and exemptions to individuals who are authorized to speak and participate in parliamentary proceedings.
Constitutional basis
Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution provide the framework for these privileges. The Parliament till now has not explicitly created code for privileges. As of now, it is based on 5 sources – Constitution, statutes, House procedures, Parliamentary conventions and judicial interpretations.
Specific privileges
- Freedom of speech in Parliament/legislature (Article 115(1))
- Immunity from legal proceedings for anything said or voted upon in Parliament/legislature (Articles 105(2) and 194(2))
- Protection from liability for publications authorized by Parliament/legislature
Two broad categories of Privileges
- Collective Privileges – Those that are collectively enjoyed by the each House of Parliament.
- Individual Privileges – Those that are individually enjoyed by the members.
Purpose
These privileges are essential for the effective functioning of legislatures in a democracy. They ensure that:
- MPs/MLAs can freely express their opinions and participate in debates without fear of legal repercussions. This facilitates robust discussions and informed decision-making.
- The Houses can maintain their authority, dignity, and honour. This fosters public trust and respect for the legislative process.
- Members are protected from frivolous lawsuits or intimidation tactics aimed at hindering their parliamentary duties. This safeguards their independence and ability to represent their constituents effectively.
Drawbacks of Legislative Immunity
- Political misuse:
- It can be used to evade accusations or inquiries unrelated to legislative duties.
- Immunity can be used as a political tool to target opponents or shield members of the ruling party.
- Reduced accountability: Legislators may become less accountable for their actions and less responsive to public concerns if they feel immune from legal consequences.
- Delays in legal proceedings: Legal proceedings involving legislators may be delayed compared to those involving regular individuals.
- Unequal application of law: Legislative immunity provides specific legal protections to certain individuals, creating inequality in the application of the law.
- Hinders investigations: Legislative immunity can hinder investigations into legislative misconduct, obstructing efforts to address wrongdoing in the political sphere.
- Loss of public trust: Legislators may be perceived as being above the law, leading to a loss of public trust.
- Complex legal interpretations: The application of legislative immunity can lead to complex legal interpretations, making it challenging to determine when immunity applies and in what circumstances.
- Enables unethical behaviour: Legislative immunity can enable corrupt or unethical behavior without the fear of legal consequences.
Time-Line of JMM case
- July 26, 1993: CPI-M MP Ajoy Mukhopadhyay tables a no-confidence motion against the minority government led by P.V. Narasimha Rao, backed by 251 MPs out of 528.
- July 28, 1993: Motion is defeated by 14 votes.
- February 28, 1994: A Hindi weekly from Kota publishes details alleging bribes to four Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MPs after the defeat of the no-confidence motion.
- February 01, 1996: Rashtriya Mukti Morcha (RMM) demands a CBI probe into the alleged bribery case.
- February 22, 1996: RMM president files PIL in Delhi High Court, seeking CBI investigation.
- February 26, 1996: Former JMM MP Shailendra Mahato admits to monetary transactions after the no-confidence motion.
- April 17, 1998: P V Narasimha Rao vs State (CBI/Spe), SC upholds MPs as public servants but immune from prosecution under Article 105(2).
Recent Supreme Court Judgement
This landmark judgement clarified the scope of privileges enjoyed by MPs/MLAs, particularly regarding:
- No immunity for bribery: The court ruled that accepting bribes is a separate crime, unrelated to the legitimate duties of a legislator. Therefore, Articles 105 and 194 cannot be invoked to claim immunity from prosecution for bribery charges.
- Upholding the rule of law: The judgement emphasized that all individuals, including lawmakers, are subject to the law and cannot claim privileges to shield themselves from criminal activities.
- Reinforces the principle of equality before the law and strengthens Indian democracy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the recent Supreme Court judgment regarding parliamentary privileges and immunity in the context of bribery allegations marks a watershed moment in India’s legal landscape. By clarifying that acceptance of bribes does not fall within the purview of legislative duties and hence does not warrant immunity from prosecution, the court has reaffirmed the primacy of accountability and integrity in the democratic process.
Related Topics
Privileges Committee
Composition:
- Consists of 15 members (10 members in case of Rajya Sabha) nominated by the Speaker (Chairman in case of Rajya Sabha).
Functions:
- Examines questions involving breach of privilege:
- Of the House itself.
- Of its members or any committee members.
- These questions can be referred by the House or the Speaker.
- Advises the House on the procedure to follow for implementing its recommendations.
Reporting:
- When a question comes from the House, the Committee Chair presents the report.
- If the Speaker refers the question, the report goes to them for:
- Final decision-making.
- Or direction to present it to the House.
Additional Function (since 1986):
- Conducts preliminary inquiries into petitions regarding MP disqualification for defection (switching parties) under 10th schedule of the constitution.
- Submits a report with its findings to the Speaker.
References
Ethics Committee – Gokulam Seek IAS
Practice Question
Discuss the recent Supreme Court judgment on parliamentary privileges and immunity in the context of bribery allegations, highlighting its implications for Indian parliamentary democracy. [250 words]
How to approach this question?
Introduction (20 words):
- Begin by briefly introducing the concept of parliamentary privileges and immunity, and mention the recent Supreme Court judgment.
Body (200 words):
- Context of the Judgment:
- Discuss the context of the recent Supreme Court judgment, including the specific case and the allegations of bribery involved.
- Parliamentary Privileges and Immunity:
- Explain the concept of parliamentary privileges and immunity, and how it is enshrined in the Constitution of India.
- Details of the Judgment:
- Discuss the details of the Supreme Court judgment, including its interpretation of parliamentary privileges and immunity in the context of bribery allegations.
- Implications for Parliamentary Democracy:
- Analyze the implications of the judgment for Indian parliamentary democracy. Discuss how it affects the functioning of the Parliament, the conduct of its members, and the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature.
- Critiques and Counterarguments:
- Discuss any critiques or counterarguments related to the judgment. Evaluate its potential impact on the accountability and transparency of the Parliament.
Conclusion (30 words):
- Conclude by summarizing the significance of the Supreme Court judgment for parliamentary privileges and immunity, and its implications for Indian parliamentary democracy. Highlight the need for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the Parliament in the face of such challenges.
Remember to provide a balanced answer, incorporating relevant facts and figures, and propose feasible solutions. Structure your answer well, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Also, ensure that your answer is within the word limit specified for the exam. Good luck!