Legal largesse

The former parliamentarians who were let off are former union minister Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Abhey Pratap Singh, Haji Ghulam Mohammad, Roshan Lal and Anadi Charan Das. Three other ex-MPs of the party, Shibhu Soren, Suraj Mandal and Simon Marandi, were also dischargedfrom facing trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act and criminal conspiracy. However, they continue to face charges for 8220;fabricating false evidence8221; during investigation of the case, a contention forwarded by the CBI during the arguments.

Only the alleged bribe givers 8212; former PM P.V. Narasimha Rao, ex-Union minister Captain Satish Sharma, Buta Singh, M. Veerappa Moily, Bhajan Lal, Rajeshwar Rao, H.M. Revenna and Ramalinga Reddy 8212; and a tenth JMM MP, who is believed to have taken money and still voted against the Rao government, Ajit Singh, will now face trial.

The section of the Constitution citing which the six former MPs were let off states that 8220;no MP 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, papers, votes or proceedings8221;.

So, on this ground, the six formerMPs who had allegedly accepted bribes to support Rao8217;s government during a no-confidence motion on July 28, 1993, were discharged by the court.

The former MPs had reportedly got Rs 1 crore each as well as flats in posh South Delhi areas to save the tottering Rao government. The CBI claimed to have seized the money and sealed the flats.

According to the agency8217;s charge-sheet, 10 MPs in all had accepted bribes to save the Rao government. Only one, Ajit Singh, reportedly took the bribe and voted in favour of the no-trust motion. His appeal was rejected by the court.Following prolonged and painstaking investigations, the CBI had filed charge-sheets in the sensational case in three phases. The first had the names of Rao and four JMM leaders 8212; Shibhu Soren, Suraj Mandal, Simon Marandi and Ajit Singh 8212; the second of the other former MPs and the last of Moily and the other alleged bribe givers.

Eminent constitutional experts feel this case would be used as a precedent to protect corrupt MPs in the future, andthat an MP was just a public servant and not a super citizen above the law.

One of these experts, Rajeev Dhavan, finds it baffling that while bribe givers are to be prosecuted, bribe takers are protected by a web of constitutional immunity. Accepting bribes in exchange of bartering an MP8217;s function can never be accepted as forming a part of the privileges of a parliamentarian, he noted.

Another legal expert, Ashok Arora, states that the freedom of speech cannot be extended to freedom to commit a crime. 8220;It is unconceivable that the framers of the Constitution intended to provide special protection to MPs against their misdeeds or acts constituting crime. The object was only to give them freedom of speech,8221; he notes.

Parliamentary democracy could never be a true democracy if MPs were immune to commit any crime or any dishonesty in respect of a speech made or a vote given in Parliament, Arora added.

CBI officials also express dismay at the way the case has fallen flat. 8220;The CBI has been asked toamend the charges against the three former JMM MPs since they are only going to be tried for fabricating false evidence during the investigation. We will try our best now to at least get them convicted for this. And, of course, we also have to prepare a water-tight case against the bribe givers,8221; an officer said.

Interestingly, the discharged MPs have also applied for the return of the money given to them as bribe and unsealing of the flats. To avoid that may mean more prolonged litigation.

Case chronology