Legislators Taking Bribes Get No Immunity Under Articles 105 and 194; PV Narasimha Rao Overruled: Seven-Judge Bench

The appellant, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, was alleged to have accepted a bribe from an independent candidate to vote for him in the Rajya Sabha election of 30 March 2012, though she voted for her own party's candidate (para 3). The High Court of Jharkhand refused to quash the chargesheet, holding that under PV Narasimha Rao she had no protection because she had not voted for the alleged bribe giver (para 4). A five-judge Bench doubted PV Narasimha Rao and on 20 September 2023 referred the question to seven Judges (para 6). The merits of her case were not decided (para 7).

Stare decisis is not an inflexible rule, and an error in constitutional interpretation harming probity in public life should not be perpetuated (paras 33, 40). Indian legislatures never had the House of Commons' 'ancient and undoubted' privileges; theirs were statutory before the Constitution (para 66). A member's claim of privilege must be tethered to the collective functioning of the House and necessary for the essential duties of a legislator (para 91). The words 'in respect of' mean arising out of or bearing a clear relation to, not any remote connection (para 103). Bribery destroys the fearless atmosphere for debate that Articles 105 and 194 protect (para 104). A legislator who takes a bribe commits a crime unrelated to the ability to vote, and the House's disciplinary jurisdiction is separate from the criminal court's (paras 110-111). Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act the offence is complete on acceptance, whether or not the promised act is done (paras 117, 125). The majority view paradoxically immunised a legislator who voted as bribed but not one who voted independently (para 126). Votes cast in Rajya Sabha elections fall within Article 194(2), which uses 'Legislature' and not 'House' (paras 180, 184).