LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES

Legislative privileges are  a system in which members of the legislature are granted protection from legal prosecution for actions taken or statements made in the course of their official duties.In India, this concept is enshrined in the Constitution and plays a crucial role in the functioning of the country’s parliamentary democracy. These privileges are defined in Article 105 of the Indian Constitution. Article 194 guarantees same privileges to the Members of Legislative Assemblies of states. Under these privileges, the members of Parliament are exempted from any civil liability (but not criminal liability) for any statement made or act done in the course of their duties.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

• Special rights: These privileges provide immunities and exemptions enjoyed by the two houses of Parliament, their committees, and their members.
• Need: They are essential to secure the independence and effectiveness of parliamentary actions. Without these privileges, the Houses cannot maintain their authority, dignity, and honor, nor can they protect their members from obstruction in the discharge of their parliamentary responsibilities.
• Extension: Parliamentary privileges are extended to those persons entitled to speak and take part in the proceedings of a House of Parliament or any of its committees. This includes the Attorney General of India and Union Ministers.
• Exception: The parliamentary privileges do not extend to the President, who is an integral part of the Parliament.
• Article 121: It restricts members from discussing the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court.
• Freedom of speech: Freedom of speech in Parliament is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the rules regulating the procedure of the Houses.
• Rajya Sabha Rulebook: It is an essential prerequisite for the efficient discharge of parliamentary duties. Without it, members may not be able to speak their mind and express their views in the House without fear.
• Classification:
• Collective privileges: These are privileges enjoyed by each house of Parliament collectively.
• Individual privileges: These are privileges enjoyed by members individually.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

• Article 105: Deals with the powers, privileges, etc. of the Houses of Parliament and its members and committees.
• Article 105(2): Provides immunity to Members of Parliament (MPs) from prosecution in any court for anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament.
• MPs are exempt from legal action for statements made or acts done in the course of their parliamentary duties.
• Article 194(2): A corresponding provision granting immunity to members of state legislatures.
• Defamation: Defamation suits cannot be filed for statements made within the parliamentary setting.
• Immunity to non-members: Individuals like the Attorney General of India or Ministers, who may not be members of the legislature but speak in the House, also enjoy immunity.
• Role of Speaker: In cases where a member exceeds the limits of permissible free speech, the Speaker of the House is responsible for addressing the issue internally, rather than it being brought before a court of law.

CASES RELATED TO LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES

• P.V Narasimha Rao v. State (1998)

• A five-member Constitution Bench had held that parliamentarians and legislators enjoyed immunity for their actions on the floor of the House, even if they had taken bribes to vote in a particular manner.
• It allowed legislators to claim immunity from prosecution in bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

• Kuldip Nayar case (2006)

• SC  held that elections to the Rajya Sabha are not proceedings of the legislature but a mere exercise of franchise and therefore fall outside the ambit of parliamentary privileges under Article 194.

• State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith Case (2021)

• The Supreme Court, observed, that privileges and immunities are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general law of the land, particularly as case of, the criminal law which governs the action of every citizen.

• In July 2021, the Supreme Court rejected the Kerala government’s plea to withdraw criminal cases against its MLAs who were charged in the assembly.

CURRENT ISSUE AND VERDICT

• A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) unanimously overruled its Judgement in P.V Narasimha Rao v. State (1998).also known as the JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha) bribery case.
• Allegations: Certain members (MPs) of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) were accused of accepting bribes in exchange for voting against a No-Confidence motion in 1993.
• 1998 Ruling: Established immunity for MPs and MLAs from prosecution in bribery cases if they fulfilled their end of the bargain, essentially granting immunity to lawmakers who accepted bribes and then voted or spoke in the House as agreed upon.
• Recent Ruling: The Supreme Court overturned the 1998 ruling, emphasizing that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privileges.
• Basis of Recent Ruling: Accepting a bribe is a separate criminal act, unrelated to the core duties of lawmakers within the Parliament or legislative assembly.
• Immunity: Highlighted that the immunity provided under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution does not extend to cases of bribery.

KEY POINTS OF THE SC JUDGMENT ON JMM BRIBERY CASE

1. No Violation of Stare Decisis

• Courts can change prior rulings if they have wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy.
• The principle of stare decisis requires courts to follow precedent, but exceptions exist when significant public interest concerns are at stake.

2. Legislative Privileges Conform with Constitutional Parameters

• Unlike the UK’s historic rights, India’s parliamentary privileges derive from statute and constitutional privilege, subject to judicial review.
•  This ensures that legislative privileges are consistent with constitutional principles and can be scrutinized by the judiciary.

3. Constitutional Immunity from Bribery Charges Lacks a Two-Fold Test

• Immunity from prosecution for bribery contradicts the purpose of fostering debate and deliberation in the legislature, failing to meet the test of necessity for a legislator’s essential duties.
•  The two-fold test assesses whether claimed privileges are essential to collective functioning and necessary for legislator duties.

4. Bribery Not Immune

• Bribery doesn’t enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) if it’s not intrinsic to the voting process, challenging the interpretation that any act related to parliamentary duties is immune from prosecution.
• Accepting a bribe constitutes a criminal offense and is not protected by parliamentary privileges.

5. Parallel Jurisdictions

• Courts and the House can exercise parallel jurisdictions.
• The Court’s jurisdiction to prosecute bribery charges doesn’t interfere with the House’s authority to address breaches of discipline.
•  Judicial proceedings and House actions operate independently.

6. Corruption Erodes Democracy

• Legislative corruption undermines democratic values and citizens’ representation, eroding probity in public life and creating a polity that deprives citizens of a responsible democracy.

7. Legislative Privileges Apply Equally to Rajya Sabha Elections

• The principles regarding legislative privileges extend to Rajya Sabha elections and appointments of the President and Vice-President, ensuring consistency and adherence to constitutional principles.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT ON THE JMM BRIBERY CASE

1. Upholding Basic Structure Doctrine

• The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial review, a fundamental aspect of the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Indian Constitution.
•  This ensures that parliamentary privileges are subject to scrutiny by the judiciary, safeguarding the constitutional framework.

2. Combating Corruption

• By removing immunity for legislators facing bribery charges, the judgment contributes to the fight against corruption.
•  It sends a strong message that corrupt practices within the legislative sphere will not be tolerated and must be prosecuted like any other criminal offense.

3. Promoting Accountability & Transparency

• By clarifying that bribery offenses are not immune from prosecution, the judgment promotes accountability and transparency in governance.
• It underscores the importance of holding lawmakers accountable for their actions, regardless of their position or privileges.

4. Strengthening Integrity of the House

• Upholding the principle that accepting bribes to make a speech undermines the integrity of the house strengthens the institution's credibility.
•  It reinforces the expectation that legislators must act in the public interest and maintain the highest ethical standards.

5. Protection of Fundamental Rights

• By ensuring equal treatment under the law and eliminating special privileges for bribery accused legislators, the judgment upholds the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
•  It reaffirms that no one is above the law and all individuals are subject to the same legal standards.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT

Positive Impact

1. Equality before the Law

• The judgment reinforces the principle that no one, including lawmakers, is above the law.
•  This reaffirms the notion of equality before the law, ensuring that legislators are subject to the same legal standards as any other citizen.

2. Combatting Corruption

• By removing immunity for legislators in bribery cases, the judgment sends a strong message against corruption and bribery in the legislative process.
• It emphasizes the importance of upholding ethical standards and integrity in governance.

3. Legal Accountability

• The judgment enables law enforcement agencies to initiate prosecution against legislators accused of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
•  This strengthens the legal accountability of lawmakers and ensures that they can be held responsible for their actions.

4. Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

• The prospect of facing prosecution for bribery could potentially lead to greater accountability and transparency in the legislative process.
• Legislators may be more cautious about engaging in corrupt practices, knowing that they can be held legally accountable.

Negative Impact

1. Potential Legal Uncertainty - Overturning established precedent may lead to legal uncertainty and interpretation challenges, potentially complicating future judicial decisions.
2. Impact on Legislative Independence- Some argue that subjecting legislators to criminal prosecution may impede their independence and effectiveness in fulfilling their duties, potentially affecting the functioning of the legislative body.
3. Political Ramifications- The judgment may have political ramifications, potentially affecting the candidates who had been elected through bribery, leading to questions about the legitimacy of their positions and undermining public trust in the electoral process.
4. Challenges in Implementation- Implementing the judgment effectively may pose logistical and procedural challenges for law enforcement agencies and the judiciary, including gathering evidence, conducting investigations, and ensuring fair trials while respecting parliamentary privileges and legal rights.