Sign In
Learn bits
Polity & Governance
Mahesh

05/03/24 09:43 AM IST

JMM bribes for votes ruling

In News
  • A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, ruled that lawmakers facing bribery charges in connection with their speech and votes in the House cannot be immune from criminal prosecution.
Privileges in constitution
  • Article 105(2) of the Constitution states: “No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.”
  • Article 194(2) provides identical protections to members of state Assemblies.
  • Before the seven-judge Bench was essentially the interpretation of this provision.
  • This provision was previously interpreted in the 1998 JMM Bribery ruling, so the correctness of that ruling had to be tested.
Interpretation of the law
  • Tracing the history of parliamentary privileges in India, the SC said that unlike the House of Commons in the UK, India does not have ‘ancient and undoubted’ rights vested after a struggle between Parliament and the King.
  • These rights in India, even during colonial times, have flown from a statute, which after independence transitioned to a constitutional privilege.
  • This the court cited as reason to interpret privilege in a way that fits with the larger ideals of the Constitution.
  • There are two components of parliamentary privilege. One is what the House exercises collectively — which would include the power to punish for its contempt, the power to conduct its own affairs, among others.
  • The second is for individual rights — say exercise of free speech by each member.
  • This, the court said, has to pass a test.
  • The ruling cited the “necessity test”, which means that for a member to exercise a privilege, the privilege must be such that without it “they could not discharge their functions.”
  • Naturally, accepting bribes cannot be said to be necessary to discharge one’s functions as a lawmaker, unlike, for example, having the right to free speech.
  • The court also said that the Constitution envisions probity in public life.
Court’s power
  • Since Parliament also has the power to punish its members for contempt — the punishment here could be suspension from the House and even sentencing to jail term — the SC had to decide whether this meant courts had no role to play.
  • The SC held that both the court and Parliament can exercise jurisdiction on the actions of lawmakers in parallel.
  • This is because the purpose of punishment by the House is different from the purpose of a criminal trial.
  • The issue of bribery is not one of exclusivity of jurisdiction by the House over its bribe-taking members.
  • The purpose of a House acting against a contempt by a member for receiving a bribe serves a purpose distinct from a criminal prosecution.
Source- Indian Express

More Related Current Affairs View All

14 Nov

India’s tea, sugar exports raise sustainability concerns at home

'India is one of the world’s largest agricultural product exporters.' The Indian agricultural export is valued at $53.1 billion in 2022-2023, up from $8.7 billion in 2004-

Read More

14 Nov

Superbugs and the looming public health crisis

'LESS than a hundred years ago, antibiotics ushered in an era that transformed medical care.' It saved millions of lives and accelerated the development and use of complex surge

Read More

13 Nov

Healthy longevity initiative

'The World Bank report proposes a healthy longevity initiative (HLI) which takes a life course approach.' Briefly, healthy longevity entails sharply reducing avoidable death and

Read More

India’s First Ai-Driven Magazine Generator

Generate Your Custom Current Affairs Magazine using our AI in just 3 steps