~ This post has been authored by the Editorial Team of The Writ Review.
In the recent landmark case of Sita Soren vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court’s constitution bench delivered a unanimous ruling. They addressed the liability of Members of Parliament regarding bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PCA”). The ruling also covered legislative immunity provided by Article 105 and Article 194 of the Constitution. This judgement overturned the long-standing precedent set in PV Narasimha Rao vs. State (CBI/SPE) which dealt with a Member of Parliament’s immunity from bribery prosecution in criminal court. What this article examines is the anti-corruption provisions and their implications following the Sita Soren ruling.
Facts of the case:
On March 30, 2012, a Rajya Sabha election was held in Jharkhand. Sita Soren, an MLA from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, allegedly accepted a bribe from an independent candidate. However, she voted for her party’s candidate, breaking the bribe agreement. This led to the election being annulled. In the subsequent round, she again voted for her party’s candidate.
Criminal proceedings were initiated against Sita Soren, and a chargesheet was filed. She sought to quash the chargesheet and proceedings in the Jharkhand High Court. The court ruled she wasn’t protected by privilege under Article 194(2) since she didn’t vote for the bribe-giver. Sita Soren then took the case to the Supreme Court.
The case went through multiple benches over nearly a decade. A two-judge bench first heard it and referred it to a three-judge bench on September 23, 2014. On March 7, 2019, the three-judge bench recommended that a five-judge bench should hear it owing to its “public importance”. Finally, on September 20, 2023, the five-judge bench decided that the PV Narasimha Rao case needed reconsideration, and a larger bench should hear it.
Key Issues:
- Whether the offense of bribery under Section 7 of the PCA is complete if the bribe for an act is allegedly accepted, but the subsequent act for which the bribe was given is not committed?
- Whether a legislator enjoys immunity from prosecution under Article 105(2) or Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India for accepting bribes to vote in Parliament or an Assembly?
Findings of the Supreme Court:
Regarding bribery, the Court ruled that it is irrelevant whether the act for which the bribe is given is performed. Under Section 7 of the PCA, merely “obtaining,” “accepting,” or “attempting” to obtain an undue advantage with the intent to act or refrain from acting is enough to complete the offense. The Supreme Court supported this interpretation using the first explanation to Section 7. It stated that “obtaining,” “accepting,” or “attempting” to obtain an undue advantage constitutes an offense, even if a public servant’s performance of duties hasn’t been improper. Thus, the bribery offense is based on receiving or agreeing to receive an undue advantage, not the actual performance of the related act.
On legislative immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clarified that these provisions aim to enable robust democratic discussions within legislative bodies. However, it held that bribery is not protected under Article 105(2) or Article 194. A member engaging in bribery is committing a crime, which is not essential for voting or deciding how to vote.
Author’s Conclusion:
The Supreme Court has rightly recognized that corruption involves not just the outcome, but also the intention to engage in corrupt behavior. The Court emphasized the primary goal of Section 7 of the PCA, which is to deter public officials from accepting bribes and acting against public interest. The law encompasses various stages of bribery, from the acceptance or attempted acceptance of a bribe to the commission of the related act, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the offense. The Court ruled that the offense of bribery is complete at the stages of “obtaining,” “accepting,” or “attempting” to obtain an undue advantage. A violation occurs under the PCA regardless of whether the public official successfully receives the bribe or merely attempts to do so. This approach aligns with the preventive intent of the law, aiming to address corruption early and prevent its escalation.
Regarding Section 7 of the PCA, the Court addressed the misinterpretation of Article 105(2) of the Constitution. The Court in P.V. Narasimha Rao had overly broadened this article, suggesting it provided absolute immunity. The current ruling affirms that parliamentary privileges should not exempt members from general law. Articles 105(2) and 194 protect the freedom of speech of members to ensure effective democratic deliberations. Accepting a bribe to act within Parliament undermines democracy by compromising members’ free will.
The Court cautioned that this interpretation could lead to false allegations against Members of Parliament. Therefore, a balance in implementation is necessary.