Bribery, and the Immunity That Ended

In one line

For twenty-six years a legislator who took a bribe and then voted as promised was immune and one who took the bribe and voted his own way was not; on 4 March 2024 seven judges called that paradoxical, overruled it, and held that the offence is complete when the bribe is accepted.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC 626, the majority held that a member of Parliament who accepted a bribe and voted accordingly was immune from prosecution under article 105(2), which protects a member in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament, while a member who took the bribe and did not vote as agreed was not; and in Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 161, decided on 4 March 2024, a Bench of seven judges disagreed with and overruled the majority on that aspect, holding that an individual member cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity under articles 105 and 194 from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with a vote or speech, that the offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the agreed action and crystallises on the exchange of illegal gratification, and that the earlier interpretation produced a paradoxical outcome contrary to the text and purpose of those articles.

The old law

Facts of P.V. Narasimha Rao. On 26 July 1993 a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok Sabha against the minority Government of P.V. Narasimha Rao. On 28 July 1993 the motion was lost, 251 members voting in support and 265 against. Members owing allegiance to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and to the Janata Dal (Ajit Singh group) voted against the motion, and one member abstained. The prosecution case was that they agreed to and did receive bribes to vote against the motion, and a prosecution was launched against the alleged bribe givers and bribe takers, cognizance being taken by the Special Judge, Delhi.

Held by the majority. Article 105(2) protects a member in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament, and the words were read widely enough to cover the taking of a bribe where the member went on to give the vote he had been paid for; so the alleged bribe takers who voted against the motion were immune, while a member who had taken money and abstained was not.

The paradox that produced, and it is the single fact this chapter exists to deliver. A legislator who took the money and delivered the vote was protected. A legislator who took the money and then voted his conscience was prosecuted. The law rewarded the completed corruption and punished the incomplete one.