Bribe and crime

Ordinary people look to the courts for rounded judgments, consistent, comprehensive rulings which stand the test of common logic. Unfortunat...

Ordinary people look to the courts for rounded judgments, consistent, comprehensive rulings which stand the test of common logic. Unfortunately, in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha bribery case such a ruling is not available.

This is essentially because of the conflict between rude reality which needs to be confronted and high principle which should be upheld. What it proves is that with the best will in the world, the courts can only do so much. The rest depends on the very politicians who make a mockery of the principles which the courts are left to defend as valiantly as they can. On the face of it, the Supreme Court8217;s ruling in the JMM matter offends the sense of natural justice by applying different yardsticks to bribe-takers and bribe-givers whereby the former are given the benefit of parliamentary privilege and escape prosecution in a court of law but not the latter.

True, two of the five judges on the bench took an opposite and arguably more rigorous view of Article 105 which gives MPs and MLAs immunityfrom prosecution for acts performed in the legislature. In their separate judgments, Justices S.C. Agrawal and A.S. Anand found that bribery is no part of legislative business and there can be no immunity for bribe-takers.

But the majority view which prevailed is that so narrow a view of the constitutional guarantee of protection for legislators would curtail their freedom to carry out their proper functions in the House. One could draw an analogy here with pragmatists and idealists, both trying to deal in separate ways with disgraceful political conduct.

The outcome on the ground, it must be said with no disrespect to the court, is unsatisfactory, a legal fudge on the business of taking and giving bribes. It is skating on thin ice to argue that someone who did not vote in accordance with the bribe-givers8217; wishes was not performing a legislative act. Surely there is only a hair-splitting difference between taking and giving bribes. The judgment which will have to be accepted for the time being makes itonly too clear that it is incumbent on parliament to do its part to clear up the confusion. Some light may come to be thrown on the issue if the Supreme Court8217;s advice is followed and breach of privilege or contempt of parliament proceedings are begun against takers and givers.

On the second point of law thrown up by the JMM case, the five judges delivered the unanimous view that legislators are to be regarded as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This significant and far-reaching ruling should put more bite into the act. It was always an absurd claim that legislators perform no public duty although they enjoy all manner of rights and privileges, including financial ones under the now ubiquitous development funds for MPs and MLAs, and a growing number of opportunities for patronage. It is high time it was brought home that legislators can be prosecuted for wrong-going outside the House. Although a temporary measure to fill a gap in the law, it is a mixed blessing to have the Speaker ofthe House as the sanctioning authority for prosecution, given the quality of some incumbents.