Legislative Immunity in India: Constitutional Protections and Bribery Challenges

An in-depth analysis of the constitutional provisions, landmark judgments, and the ongoing scrutiny by the Supreme Court

Introduction

The constitutional immunity granted to legislators in India has long remained one of the most contentious issues in Indian democracy. The tension between ensuring free speech for parliamentarians and holding them accountable for criminal conduct has sparked numerous legal battles. The question of whether legislators can claim immunity from prosecution when accepting bribes to vote or speak in a particular manner within the legislature reached its culmination in the landmark 2024 judgment that fundamentally altered India’s constitutional landscape. This legal conundrum, rooted in Articles 105 and 194 of the Indian Constitution, has tested the boundaries between parliamentary privileges and the rule of law, raising critical questions about democratic accountability and the sanctity of legislative institutions.

Constitutional Framework of Legislative Immunity

The Indian Constitution provides specific provisions granting certain immunities to members of Parliament and state legislatures. Article 105 of the Constitution deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament and its members [1]. The critical provision, Article 105(2), states that 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 Parliament or any committee thereof. Similarly, Article 194 extends parallel protections to members of state legislatures, ensuring that Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) enjoy similar immunities for their actions within the legislative framework [2].

These constitutional provisions were designed to create an environment where legislators could participate in debates, express dissenting views, and cast their votes without fear of legal repercussions. The framers of the Constitution recognized that robust democratic deliberation required protection from external pressures, including judicial interference. However, the scope and extent of this immunity, particularly its application to criminal offenses like bribery, remained ambiguous and subject to judicial interpretation. The provisions were modeled on the privileges enjoyed by the British House of Commons, though adapted to suit Indian democratic requirements and constitutional values.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Legislative Framework

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, enacted by the Indian Parliament on September 9, 1988, serves as the primary anti-corruption legislation in India [3]. This Act consolidates and strengthens provisions relating to the prevention of corruption among public servants, including members of Parliament and state legislatures. Section 7 of the Act specifically addresses the offense of public servants taking gratification, making it punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than three years but which may extend to seven years, along with a fine [4].

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, creates an offense when any public servant accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for performing or abstaining from performing any official act. The provision is designed to prevent corruption at its inception, criminalizing not just the act of receiving a bribe but also the agreement to receive or the attempt to obtain such gratification. The first explanation to Section 7 expressly clarifies that the offense is complete even if the performance of a public duty by a public servant has not been improper, emphasizing that the law targets the corrupt intent rather than the eventual outcome.

The Act underwent significant amendments in 2018 through the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which brought it in line with the United Nations Convention against Corruption. These amendments introduced the concept of “undue advantage” and expanded the scope of offenses to include both bribe-givers and bribe-takers. The amended provisions also introduced timelines for trial completion and strengthened provisions for attachment and forfeiture of property acquired through corrupt means. The legislative intent was clear: to create a robust framework for combating corruption in public life while ensuring accountability of all public servants, irrespective of their constitutional position.

The P.V. Narasimha Rao Case: Setting a Controversial Precedent

The 1998 judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) became the cornerstone of legislative immunity in bribery cases, though it remained deeply controversial throughout its existence [5]. The case arose from allegations that during the monsoon session of the Lok Sabha in July 1993, a no-confidence motion was moved against the government led by Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. Facing the prospect of losing the vote, several members of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and Janata Dal (Ajit Group) were allegedly bribed to vote against the motion or to abstain from voting. The motion was defeated with 265 votes against it and 251 in favor, allowing the government to survive.

A complaint was filed on February 28, 1996, alleging that members of Parliament had received bribes during the no-confidence motion. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) launched an investigation, leading to charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (criminal conspiracy) and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused moved the Delhi High Court to quash the charges, which dismissed their petitions. Appeals were then filed in the Supreme Court, where a five-judge Constitution Bench heard the matter.

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on April 17, 1998, with the bench split 3:2 on the crucial question of immunity [6]. The majority opinion, authored by Justice S.P. Bharucha and concurred with by Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice G.N. Ray, held that members of Parliament who accepted bribes and voted in accordance with the bribe agreement were immune from prosecution under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. The majority reasoned that the immunity granted under Article 105(2) was absolute for anything said or any vote given in Parliament, and this protection extended to acts of bribery connected with such votes or speeches. However, the judgment created an artificial distinction: legislators who took bribes but did not vote as agreed, or who abstained from voting, could be prosecuted, as could those who gave the bribes.

Justice S.C. Agrawal, in his dissenting opinion joined by Justice A.S. Anand, took a fundamentally different view. He held that members of Parliament do not enjoy immunity from prosecution for offenses involving bribery related to their parliamentary functions. Justice Agrawal observed that granting immunity to legislators for taking bribes would be an unacceptable proposition that contradicted the fundamental principles of equality before law. This dissenting view would later form the foundation for reconsidering the majority position. The judgment left unresolved the question of whether such immunity served the constitutional purpose of protecting free speech or merely shielded corrupt practices.

The Sita Soren Case: Catalyst for Constitutional Reexamination

The case of Sita Soren v. Union of India emerged as the vehicle for reexamining the controversial 1998 precedent [7]. On March 30, 2012, elections were held to elect two members to the Rajya Sabha from Jharkhand. Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, was accused of accepting a bribe from an independent candidate in exchange for casting her vote in his favor during the Rajya Sabha elections. However, since the Rajya Sabha follows an open balloting system, it was discovered that Soren had actually voted for a candidate from her own party rather than the person who allegedly bribed her.

Criminal proceedings were initiated against Soren under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. She approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings, claiming protection under Article 194(2) of the Constitution and relying on the precedent established in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case. On February 17, 2014, the Jharkhand High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court reasoned that since Soren had not voted in favor of the alleged bribe-giver, she could not claim immunity under Article 194(2), applying the logic from the P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment which distinguished between those who fulfilled their bribe agreement and those who did not.

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, Soren filed an appeal in the Supreme Court on March 26, 2014. A two-judge bench, recognizing the substantial nature and general public importance of the question, referred the matter to a three-judge bench on September 23, 2014. The three-judge bench, on March 7, 2019, observed that the case raised fundamental questions about the scope of legislative immunity and referred it to a five-judge Constitution Bench. On September 20, 2023, the five-judge bench noted that the P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment needed reconsideration as it led to paradoxical outcomes where legislators were protected from prosecution when they committed bribery. Since the P.V. Narasimha Rao case was decided by a five-judge bench, a larger seven-judge bench was required to reconsider it, following the principle that only a bench of equal or larger strength can overrule a constitutional bench decision.

The Seven-Judge Bench Verdict: Overturning Two Decades of Precedent

The seven-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh, P.S. Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra, heard arguments over two days in October 2023 [8]. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing Sita Soren, argued that the P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment was carefully considered and well-reasoned, deserving of respect under the doctrine of stare decisis. He contended that legislators required absolute protection for all acts on the floor of the House to ensure fearless participation in legislative functions. The appellant’s counsel warned that weakening this immunity would discourage independent voting and threaten legislative integrity.

The Union of India, represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, presented a contrasting perspective. They argued that accepting a bribe constitutes a criminal act distinct and separate from the legislative function of voting. The act of bribery occurs before entering the House and undermines the very foundation of democratic governance. The respondents emphasized that granting immunity for bribery would create an untenable situation where legislators could engage in criminal conduct with impunity, eroding public trust in democratic institutions. Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia, appearing as amicus curiae, supported this view, arguing that Article 105(2) was never intended to place members of Parliament above the law for offenses committed outside the legislative process.

On March 4, 2024, the seven-judge bench delivered a unanimous judgment that fundamentally altered the landscape of legislative immunity in India [9]. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, writing for the bench, held that members of Parliament and state legislatures do not enjoy immunity from prosecution for bribery charges under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution. The Court explicitly overruled the majority opinion in the P.V. Narasimha Rao case, declaring that the 1998 judgment had resulted in a paradoxical and constitutionally untenable situation.

The Supreme Court held that the purpose of granting immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) is to sustain an environment where debate and deliberation can occur freely within the legislature. This purpose is fundamentally destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner due to bribery. The Court emphasized that bribery corrupts the very essence of legislative functioning and cannot be considered an essential or protected aspect of parliamentary privilege. The judgment clarified that engaging in bribery constitutes a criminal act that is completely unrelated to a legislator’s ability to vote or decide how to cast their vote.

The Two-Fold Test for Legislative Immunity

The Supreme Court in the Sita Soren judgment established a clear two-fold test for determining when legislative immunity applies. First, the privilege claimed must be connected to the collective functioning of the House rather than individual benefits. Second, the necessity of the claimed privilege must bear a functional relationship to the discharge of essential legislative duties. This test ensures that immunity serves its constitutional purpose of facilitating robust democratic discourse while preventing its misuse as a shield for criminal conduct.

The Court examined the phrase “in respect of” appearing in Articles 105(2) and 194(2), holding that it means “arising out of” or “bearing a clear relation to” the speech or vote, and cannot be interpreted to include anything with even a remote connection to legislative functions. The expressions “anything” and “any” must be read contextually within the framework of these constitutional provisions. This narrower interpretation prevents the expansive application that characterized the P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment and aligns immunity with its intended constitutional purpose.

Bribery Under the Prevention of Corruption Act: Offense Completion

A crucial aspect of the Supreme Court’s analysis related to when the offense of bribery is complete under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that under Section 7 of the Act, the mere obtaining, accepting, or attempting to obtain an undue advantage with the intention to act or forbear from acting in a certain manner is sufficient to complete the offense. The offense of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the agreed action and crystallizes at the moment of exchange of illegal gratification. It is immaterial whether the vote is cast in the agreed direction, cast in a different direction, or not cast at all. The offense is complete when the legislator accepts the bribe, regardless of subsequent actions.

This interpretation exposed the fundamental flaw in the P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment. The earlier ruling had created a paradoxical outcome where a legislator who accepted a bribe and voted according to the agreement received immunity, while a legislator who accepted the same bribe but voted independently or abstained faced prosecution. Such an interpretation rewarded those who completed their corrupt bargain while punishing those who, despite accepting a bribe, ultimately acted according to their conscience. The Supreme Court found this distinction legally untenable and contrary to both the text and purpose of the constitutional provisions.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis and Constitutional Evolution

The Sita Soren judgment addressed the important question of whether and when the Supreme Court can reconsider its own precedents. The Court held that the doctrine of stare decisis, while important for legal certainty and predictability, is not an inflexible rule of law. A bench with a larger quorum may reconsider a previous decision in appropriate cases, particularly when the earlier judgment has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy. The Court emphasized that there exists a grave danger of perpetuating constitutional error if manifestly incorrect decisions are not reconsidered.

The judgment distinguished between judicial restraint and judicial abdication. While courts must respect precedent and exercise caution before overruling established legal principles, they cannot allow constitutional interpretation to remain frozen when it produces results contrary to the Constitution’s text, purpose, and values. The Court observed that judicial exegesis is unavoidable with respect to constitutional provisions, particularly those drawn with purposeful vagueness to accommodate future developments. The Constitution must be interpreted as a living document capable of organic growth and adaptation to changing societal needs and democratic values.

Parliamentary Privileges: Historical Context and Modern Application

The Supreme Court examined the historical evolution of parliamentary privileges in India, distinguishing them from the British model. Unlike the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, which possesses ancient and undoubted privileges acquired through centuries of struggle with the monarchy, India’s legislative privileges have a different historical trajectory. During the pre-independence period, legislative privileges in India were governed by statute in the face of a reluctant colonial government. The framers of the Indian Constitution consciously chose to provide for the definition and evolution of privileges through law rather than claiming inherent ancient rights.

Article 105(3) and Article 194(3) of the Constitution provide that until defined by law, the privileges of Indian legislative bodies shall be those of the House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution. This provision was intended as a transitional arrangement, not a permanent adoption of British parliamentary privileges. The Court noted that Parliament has been empowered to define its privileges through legislation for over seven decades, yet no such law has been enacted. This legislative silence cannot be interpreted as an endorsement of expansive immunity encompassing criminal conduct. The constitutional scheme envisages limited government where no organ possesses absolute sovereignty, including the legislature.

Impact on Democratic Accountability and Anti-Corruption Measures

The Sita Soren judgment represents a watershed moment in strengthening democratic accountability in India. By categorically holding that legislators cannot claim immunity for bribery, the Supreme Court has closed a significant loophole that potentially shielded corrupt practices in the highest levels of governance. The judgment recognizes that corruption and bribery by members of the legislature erode probity in public life and undermine the functioning of parliamentary democracy. When legislators can be bribed to vote or speak in particular ways, the entire democratic process becomes compromised, and the legitimacy of legislative decisions is called into question.

The decision also clarifies the relationship between parliamentary privileges and the jurisdiction of criminal courts. The Court held that the jurisdiction of courts to prosecute criminal offenses and the authority of the House to take action for breach of discipline exist in different spheres with different scopes, purposes, and consequences. Criminal courts are not excluded from hearing bribery cases against legislators merely because such conduct might also constitute contempt or breach of parliamentary privilege. Both proceedings can coexist, serving different constitutional functions. This ensures that legislators remain subject to the general criminal law applicable to all citizens while the legislature retains its power to maintain internal discipline.

Implications for Future Cases and Legislative Reform

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sita Soren v. Union of India has significant implications for pending and future corruption cases involving legislators. Legislators facing bribery charges can no longer invoke Articles 105(2) or 194(2) as a defense against prosecution. The judgment applies to both members of Parliament and state legislatures, covering offenses related to voting, speaking, or any other legislative function when tainted by bribery. The decision strengthens the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by affirming that its provisions apply equally to all public servants, including elected representatives, without exception based on constitutional immunity.

The judgment also highlights the need for Parliament to exercise its constitutional power under Articles 105(3) and 194(3) to define legislative privileges through legislation. Such codification would provide greater clarity and certainty regarding the scope and limits of parliamentary privileges, reducing ambiguity and potential for misuse. The Law Commission of India and parliamentary committees have periodically recommended codification of privileges, but legislative action remains pending. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the urgency of this task, as the absence of statutory definition leaves critical questions to be resolved through litigation rather than democratic deliberation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Sita Soren v. Union of India marks a defining moment in India’s constitutional jurisprudence, resolving a legal conundrum that had persisted for over two decades. By overruling the P.V. Narasimha Rao precedent, the Court has affirmed that no constitutional provision, including those granting legislative immunity, can be interpreted to shield criminal conduct like bribery. The judgment strikes a crucial balance between protecting legitimate legislative functions through immunity and ensuring accountability for corrupt practices that undermine democratic governance.

The decision reinforces the foundational principle of equality before law, holding that legislators cannot claim exemption from criminal prosecution for acts that would be punishable for any other citizen. By establishing a clear two-fold test for the application of legislative immunity and emphasizing that bribery is complete upon acceptance of illegal gratification regardless of subsequent actions, the Court has created a robust framework for addressing corruption in legislative bodies. This landmark judgment strengthens India’s anti-corruption legal architecture and reaffirms the supremacy of constitutional values over narrow interpretations of privilege. As India continues to grapple with challenges of corruption and accountability in public life, the Sita Soren judgment stands as a beacon affirming that democratic institutions must function with integrity, transparency, and adherence to the rule of law.

References

[1] Supreme Court Observer. (2024). Legislative immunity for lawmakers | Case Explainer. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/legislative-immunity-for-lawmakers-case-explainer/ 

[2] Drishti IAS. (n.d.). Parliamentary Privileges and Immunities. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/parliamentary-privileges-and-immunities 

[3] India Code. (1988). The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1558 

[4] Indian Kanoon. (n.d.). The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1331755/ 

[5] Indian Kanoon. (1998). P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State (CBI/SPE) on 17 April, 1998. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45852197/  

[6] Bar and Bench. (2024). Bribery in Parliament: What did 1998 Supreme Court judgment in PV Narasimha Rao case say? https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/news/bribery-parliament-what1998-supreme-court-judgment-pv-narasimha-rao-case-say 

[7] Supreme Court Observer. (2024). Legislative Immunity for Lawmakers Facing Bribery Charges. https://www.scobserver.in/cases/sita-soren-union-of-india-mla-bribery-case-background/ 

[8] Supreme Court of India. (2024). Sita Soren vs Union Of India judgment. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193599726/ 

[9] Live Law. (2024). Bribery Not Protected By Legislative Privileges; No Immunity For MPs/MLAs Taking Bribe For Vote/Speech In Legislature: Supreme Court. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-mps-mlas-bribe-vote-speech-legislature-claim-immunity-251136 

Authorized and Published by Sneh Purohit