SC strikes balance between graft charges, parliamentary privilege
Hindustan TimesThe seven-judge bench verdict on Monday that said bribe-taking lawmakers have no immunity strikes a much-needed balance between parliamentary privilege and corruption charges. Article 105 states: “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 and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.” The identical provision in respect of members of state legislatures is provided in Article 194. The appeal was brought to the Supreme Court where a Constitution bench of five judges determined two issues: One, does Article 105 confer any immunity on an MP from being prosecuted in an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe and two, can MPs be regarded as” public servant” to bring them within the ambit of the 1988 Act because there is no authority competent to grant sanction for their prosecution? The seven-judge bench ruling Noting precedents, historical development and international jurisprudence on parliamentary privileges, the top court on Monday declared that legislators cannot claim immunity in cases of corruption and bribery since they are not fundamentally related to their ability to perform their duties. Notably, the seven-judge bench ruling on Monday also displaced observations by another five-judge bench in the Kuldip Nayar case, which said that elections to fill seats in the Rajya Sabha are not proceedings of the legislature but a mere exercise of franchise, which falls outside the net of parliamentary privilege under Article 194.