Supreme Court Reverses 1998 Ruling Granting Legislators Immunity in Bribery Cases, Says No Immunity for MPs, MLAs in Bribe-For-Vote Cases

On Monday, the Supreme Court expressed disagreement with and overturned its 1998 ruling that provided legislators with immunity from bribery charges related to their votes in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. "The majority judgment in the Narasimha Rao case, which grants immunity to legislators, poses a serious risk and is therefore overruled," noted a seven-judge Bench led by the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

In 1998, a 3:2 majority judgment of a five-judge bench in the case of PV Narasimha Rao v State (CBI/SPE) ruled that legislators are immune from criminal prosecution for bribery in matters related to their speech and votes in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. "In the course of this judgment, while analyzing the majority and minority decisions of the Narasimha Rao judgment, we disagree and overrule the judgment that a parliamentarian can claim immunity," said the Chief Justice of India.

"An individual legislator cannot claim immunity as the claim is tied to the collective functioning of the house," the Chief Justice of India stated. "The interpretation in the Narasimha Rao judgment is contrary to Articles 105(2) and 194 of the Indian constitution," he added.

Article 194(2) of the Constitution states: "No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature 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 such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings." Article 105(2) provides identical protections to members of Parliament.

"Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105 (2) or 194 of the Constitution... Bribery undermines integrity in public life," the Chief Justice of India noted.

— With inputs from Bar and Bench