Opinion Express View on overturning of JMM verdict: Protecting debate

Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege,” the Supreme Court said on Monday, setting aside its 1998 judgment in PV Narasimha Rao v State. The 3-2 split ruling in that case — also known as the JMM bribery verdict — had held that lawmakers enjoy immunity from prosecution even if they take money to vote or make a speech in Parliament or a state legislative assembly. The majority in that bench had based its conclusion on Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution, which deal with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs. Disagreeing with their reasoning, the SC has applied a welcome corrective, anchored in constitutional principles of equality and probity. “Corruption and bribery of the members of legislature erode the foundation of Indian parliamentary democracy. It is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive and representative democracy,” CJI DY Chandrachud, who headed the seven-judge bench, said.

In 1993, JMM leader Shibu Soren and five of his party colleagues were accused of taking bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion against the PV Narasimha Rao government; Janata Dal’s Ajit Singh was also accused of accepting a bribe to abstain from voting. Five years later, the SC cited Article 105(2) to argue that “MPs must be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech in Parliament and their votes must be treated as an extension of this freedom”. But bribery and corruption as, Monday’s verdict pointed out, take away the “free will and conscience to enrich the functions of the House”. The judgment draws on a broader notion of parliamentary privileges and reiterates the argument that, unlike members of the UK’s House of Commons, Indian lawmakers do not have “undoubted rights”, wrested after a struggle against a monarchy. Privileges for MPs and MLAs, it ruled, must be interpreted in ways that “fit with the larger ideals of the Constitution”. In other words, as the SC pointed out, privilege “must be such that without it, they [lawmakers] cannot discharge their duties”. It would thus be a travesty if graft is accepted as a necessary condition – even if inadvertently — for discharging a lawmaker’s responsibility. The bench’s ruling is also significant because it engages with the issue of quid pro quo associated with bribery: “The mere acceptance or attempting to obtain an undue advantage with the intention to act… in a certain way is sufficient to complete the offence”.

Advertisement

Affirming the Right to Equality, the SC said, “it would be a violation of Article 14 to create a class of public servants, which is afforded extraordinary protection”. Going ahead, however, a note of caution is in order: Monday’s ruling should not end up making Opposition legislators more vulnerable, especially in times when the space for debate and disagreement is embattled in the House and governments armed with decisive mandates do not hesitate to weaponise central agencies to target political opponents. In coming months and years, the litmus test for the executive and judiciary would be to heed the Court’s words that best encapsulate the spirit of the verdict: “Create a fearless atmosphere in which debate, deliberations and exchange of ideas take place in Parliament and state legislatures”.