Open Access Research Article
ANALYSIS OF SITA SOREN V. UNION OF INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
ANALYSIS OF
SITA SOREN V. UNION OF INDIA
AUTHORED BY
- DEV KUMAWAT
2nd
Year, B.A. LL.B (Hons.)
Tamil Nadu
National Law University
Case Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 229
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, A.S. Bopanna
J, M.M. Sundresh J, P.S. Narasimha J, J.B. Pardiwala J, P.V. Sanjay Kumar J, Manoj
Misra J.
Judgement: March 4, 2024.
Introduction
The Landmark Case of Sita Soren v.
Union of India deals with the legislative immunity for lawmakers facing
bribery charges. Legislative immunity or parliamentary privileges are mentioned
under Articles 105[1] and 194[2]
for the centre and state respectively. Parliamentary privilege & immunities
are essential to deliberative democracy since they help the legislature to
function smoothly. It ensures that lawmakers, in whom the people have trust,
are free to voice their thoughts without fear or favour on the House floor. Parliamentary privilege protects lawmakers
from political parties with minuscule vote shares, allows them to vote on any
motion without fear, allows legislators from remote parts of the nation to
raise issues that affect their constituents without fear of legal
repercussions, and allows legislators to demand accountability without fear of
being accused of defamation.
Background
An election was held in 2012 to
select 2 members for Rajya Sabha representing the State of Jharkhand. The
appellant was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Jharkhand belonging to the
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) political party. The appellant was accused of accepting a bribe
from the independent candidate for casting her vote in favour of him. However,
she did not cast her vote in his favour and instead cast her vote in the favour
of a candidate from her political party. The first rounds of the election were called
off, and a new election was conducted and again appellant cast her vote in the
favour of her party.
The appellant moved to the High Court
to plead to quash the criminal proceedings against her & claimed protection
under Article 194(2) of the Constitution and ruling of PV Narasimha Rao v.
State[3]. The
High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings mentioning the reasoning
of PV Narasimha Rao's case that the appellant did not cast a vote in the
favour of the alleged bribe giver and thus is not permitted protection under
Article 194 (2). The controversy in the
present case and PV Narasimha Rao centres on the interpretation of
Articles 105 and 194.
In 2014, the issue was placed in front of a division
bench to decide, but in view of the issue as the general public importance, it
was placed in front of the three-judge bench. In 2019, the three-judge bench
heard the matter and observed that the issue was already dealt with by a five-judge
bench of PV Narasimha Rao. As the question was related to the PV Narasimha
Rao case, in 2023, the five-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench
of seven judges.
Issue
Whether a legislator who receives a
bribe to cast a vote in a certain direction or speak about certain issues
protected by parliamentary privilege?
Judgement
1. Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao
does not violate the principle of Stare Decisis as it is not a rigid rule
of law. A court can revisit a prior judgement if it is inconsistent with the
legal philosophy of the constitution and if it is having a negative impact on probity
in public life.
2. At no point of time in history, did privileges
demand a blanket immunity from the Criminal Law. Even in the colonial era,
parliamentary privileges were always tied to the relationship with the
functions of legislators sought to discharge.
3. The claim of privilege by a member of
the legislature must be governed by a twofold test. The privilege claimed must
be connected to the house’s collective functioning and its necessity must be
directly related to the performance of a legislator’s primary responsibilities.
4. Bribery is not protected under Articles
105 and 194 of the Indian Constitution as it does not bear any relation to the essential
functioning of the Legislature
5. Corruption and bribery in legislature
erode probity in public life
6. The offence of Bribery is complete as
soon as the illegal gratification is taken and it is independent of purpose and
place of taken.
7. Elections of the Rajya Sabha are
under the remit of Article 194 (2).
Analysis
The ruling of Sita Soren v. UOI
represents a significant advancement in the Indian Constitutional Law
concerning parliamentary privileges. The case comprehensively analyses the
scope and limits of parliamentary privileges with regard to bribery trials in
criminal courts. The primary aspect of the case was regarding the reinterpretation
of the PV Narasimha Rao case in which the bribe takers enjoyed immunity
under Article 105 whereas Sita Soren v. UOI makes it quite clear that
bribe-taking lawmakers are not protected under parliamentary privileges. To
establish this contention, judges used many different aspects like analysing functionally
in the ruling and highlighting its collective nature and the importance of the smooth
operation.
To prove the contention of Stare
Decisis, the court has given the interpretation of HR Khanna J in the case
of Manganlal Chhaganla (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay[4] that
if the construction of prior interpretation of the constitution is proved to be
unsound, unworkable, or contrary to public interest, the court is not refrained
from reconsidering that prior construction. Similarly, in the case of Bengal
Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar and Ors.[5], a
bench of seven justices of this Court outlined this Court's authority to
reexamine its rulings in light of the doctrine of Stare Decisis. In
their different decisions, SR Das, CJ, and Bhagwati, J. described this Court's
authority to review its rulings, especially where they pose significant
constitutional questions.
A significant aspect of the ruling is
a practical examination of parliamentary privilege, highlighting its collective
nature and importance for the smooth operation of the legislative branch. The
court emphasizes how crucial privileges are to promoting deliberative democracy
and maintaining integrity and accountability in public life. Further, the
judgement makes a distinction between unlawful acts like bribery and activities
connected to members of the legislature’s duties, such as speaking and voting.
It is quite clear from the ruling that lawmakers are not immune from criminal
proceedings for conduct taken beyond the purview of their legislative
responsibilities, rather it only applies to activities that are directly
related to their duties as members of the Legislature. Moreover, the judgement clearly
shows that at no point in time in the history of parliamentary privileges,
legislators have been given blanket immunity from criminal law of land.
The ruling in Sita Soren Case
rejects the broad interpretation of Article 105 (2) opined in the PV
Narasimha Rao. The bench in Sita Soren's case opined that the two phrases
“in respect of”& “anything” should
be interpreted in the context of the words that occur by referring to the other
words of the said provision. The case of 1998 constructed ‘in respect of’ broadly,
implying that it refers to everything related to the vote or remark made. This
led to the conclusion that a bribe paid to influence a member of the legislature’s
vote was immune to criminal proceedings. This type of interpretation may
deviate from the provision’s original aim. As we already saw legislators are
immune only to the relevant functioning of the lawmaking, the freedom of expression and the
right to vote are essential to the operation of Parliament or the legislative,
and their practice must be consistent with the collective functioning of the
House.
The terms “anything said” and “any
vote given” in Clause (2) of Article 105 refer to activities performed by those
having the right to speak or vote in the House or committee. As a result,
immunity applies only if a member actively utilized their right to speak or
vote during the relevant procedures. The terms “anything” and “any” suggest
complete freedom for members to voice their views and vote without intervention
from the courts. However, this freedom is limited to acts of speaking or voting
in the House or committee and should not be applied widely. As a result, the
majority verdict in PV Narasimha Rao, which interpreted “in respect of”
too broadly, cannot be upheld.
Another issue to address was at what
moment the offence of bribery crystallizes. Judges mentioned section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act[6] which
says that mere “obtaining”, “accepting” or “attempting” to get an unfair
advantage with the aim to act or refrain from acting in a particular way is sufficient
to complete the offence. It has been argued that the execution of the promise
is immaterial to the offence being committed, and hence the difference stated
in PV Narasimha Rao is completely arbitrary.
To counter argue the position of PV
Narasimhan Rao, the bench gave the ideas of different countries such as the
United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Australia and Parliamentary
privileges in these countries have grown in distinct ways but have some
characteristics. In the United Kingdom, privileges originate from past
struggles between Parliament and the queen, with the primary goal of protecting
free speech and discussion inside Parliament while enabling courts to intervene
in circumstances such as erroneous cost claims. Similarly, in the United
States, the Speech and Debate Clause shields politicians from questions about
their congressional activities, stressing the independence of the legislative
process but not providing immunity for non-legislative conduct such as bribery,
as established in United States v. Brewster.[7]
Recent judicial decisions in Canada
and Australia have highlighted that bribery of legislators is a criminal
violation that is not protected by parliamentary privilege. R v. Bunting et
al[8].
in Canada, as well as R v. Edward White[9]
and R v. Boston[10]
in Australia, confirmed the courts' authority to punish bribery cases involving
politicians, emphasizing how such activities damage the integrity of
representative systems. Despite variances in the scope of parliamentary
privileges, these legal systems value legislative sovereignty while holding
criminals accountable, particularly in situations of attempted bribery to
influence legislative votes.
Finally, the last question that arose
in front of the Court was whether the members of the Rajya Sabha enjoy the same
privilege under Article 194 (2). the Court decided that Rajya Sabha elections
are necessary for the legislative process and so protected by parliamentary
privilege. This verdict established that parliamentary privilege extends to
legislative activity outside of official sessions, enabling elected members'
free and courageous exercise of their franchise.
Conclusion
The Seven-Judge Bench unanimously
held that a lawmaker does not enjoy immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2)
of the Constitution against bribery.
Article Information
ANALYSIS OF SITA SOREN V. UNION OF INDIA
Authors: DEV KUMAWAT
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/17
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.