The Supreme Court shattered a 26-year-old shield from prosecution available to MPs and MLAs who accepted bribes for voting or asking questions in Parliament and assemblies. The ruling stated that elected representatives involved in bribery would now be subject to the rigours of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as the constitutional immunity attached to their speech and vote in a House does not extend to protecting illegal acts.
In a unanimous decision, a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and including Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra overturned the April 17, 1998 ruling of a 5-judge bench in the P V Narasimha Rao case. This earlier ruling had granted immunity to MPs and MLAs from prosecution if they had accepted bribes in exchange for voting in Parliament or assemblies.
However, paradoxically, it allowed for the prosecution of elected representatives who had accepted bribes but did not vote. Chief Justice Chandrachud, in writing the unanimous 135-page verdict, emphasised that the intent behind Articles 105 and 194, which confer immunity on MPs and MLAs for their actions in the House, was to enable them to participate in debates, ask questions, and cast votes without fear or favour, thereby enhancing the democratic process.
The Supreme Court's ruling allows for the prosecution of JMM MLA Sita Soren, who was charged by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting bribes in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. Soren had previously relied on a 1998 Supreme Court verdict to defend against the case.
The Chief Justice-led bench also addressed the irony in the 1998 ruling, which stated that the constitutional immunity of Articles 105 and 194 did not extend to those who accepted bribes but did not vote. The Court emphasised that accepting bribes cannot be considered part of the duties and functions of elected representatives and cannot be protected by Articles 105(2) and 194(2).