
On Monday, the Supreme Court reversed a 1998 decision that shielded legislators from prosecution for accepting payments to give speeches and cast votes in the assembly. According to India's Chief Justice, DY Chandrachud, "bribery is complete when bribery is accepted."
The Chief Justice presided over a seven-member constitutional bench that issued the unanimous decision.
"We have independently adjudicated on all aspects of the controversy," stated the Chief Justice. Do members of parliament have immunity? On this point, we defy the majority and disagree."
"Corruption and bribery by members of the legislature erode probity in public life," he stated.
In 1998, a five-member bench decided that, according to parliamentary privileges granted by Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, MPs and MLAs were not prosecuted for accepting bribes to give speeches and cast votes in the legislature.
However, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Sita Soren invoked Article 105 immunity in an appeal filed in 2012 after she was allegedly offered a bribe in exchange for a Rajya Sabha vote in that particular year.
However, the appeal was turned down by the Jharkhand High Court and was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
After a two-day hearing, a seven-judge Supreme Court bench reserved its decision in October 2023.
On Monday, Chief Justice Chandrachud declared, "bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105." in addition to pronouncing the ruling.
Furthermore, he declared that accepting a bribe for "illegal gratification does not depend on whether the speech or vote is given later."
"The offence is complete when a legislator accepts a bribe."