Sita Soren v. Union of India

Message

show

Sita Soren v. Union of India

This case examines whether the immunity conferred upon Members of Parliament extends to immunity from charges of bribery and corruption.

Petitioners Arguments

That the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in view of Art. 194(2) which provides immunity from proceedings in respect of a vote given in the Legislature. That the Supreme Court is bound by its judgment in P. V. Narasimha Rao where the majority ruled that anything done, which had nexus with a vote in the legislature, would be immune from legal proceedings. While that judgment dealt with immunity afforded to parliamentarians, it applied to members of state legislatures as well because both provisions (Art. 105(2) and Art. 194(2)) were pari materia.

Responders Arguments

That the immunity given was from consequences of voting a certain way or making certain speeches, and not from bribes received to give such speeches or vote in a particular fashion. That the bribe precedes the casting of the vote and therefore cannot be said to have been “in respect of the vote” (the terminology used in Arts. 194(2) and 105(2)). Therefore, immunity from legal proceedings should not be given.

Last Listed On

2024-03-04

Start Date

2019-03-07

End Date

2024-03-04

Card Stage Date

2024-03-04

Review Petition No

Criminal Appeal No. 451/2019

Case Status

Archive

Bench Status

Constituted

Subject Matter

Constitution

Comment

NA

Disposal Time

4 years, 11 months, 27 days

7 Judge Bench

Judgment delivered

Consider As Stage Of Pendency

false

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to larger Bench

Judgement pronounced

In 2012, the Election Commission released a notification to fill up two vacant seats of the Rajya Sabha from Jharkhand. Six candidates filed their nominations. The election was countermanded as the Election Commission felt that circumstances indicated that the integrity of the election had been compromised. A CBI investigation later found that the petitioner, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly had demanded from a particular candidate, a payment of Rs. 50 Lakh for proposing his nomination and an additional Rs. 1 crore for voting in his favour, which was duly paid. The petitioner was charged with bribery and criminal conspiracy under Sections 171E and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively, and criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Act. Crucially it emerged, that while she was accused of receiving a bribe from one candidate for casting her vote in his favour, she had instead voted in favour of another candidate. In the High Court, the petitioner placed heavy reliance on P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) [(1998) 4 SCC 626] where the Supreme Court held that immunity from court proceedings provided to legislators (under Art. 105(2) and Art. 194(2)), extended not only to anything said or any vote given but also to acts connected to a speech or vote in the legislature. Consequently, the Special CBI Court that was hearing the matter discharged nine members of Parliament who were accused of taking bribes for voting against a no-confidence motion. The High Court rejected the petitioner’s plea to quash the proceedings against her. The Supreme Court, on appeal, referred the matter to a Constitution Bench in light of its doubt regarding the correctness of the judgement in P. V. Narasimha Rao , as also the matter being one of substantial public importance.

Does the immunity conferred on members of the Legislative Assembly (under Article 194 (2) of the Constitution of India) in respect of any vote given by them in the Legislature include immunity against prosecution for bribery? Is the decision in P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) [(1998) 4 SCC 626] legally correct?

Art. 194(2) of the Constitution of India

In its referral order, the Supreme Court felt that this case could have massive ramifications and the issue involved was of wide public importance. Therefore, the matter was referred to a five judge bench. Further, the Supreme Court raised doubts regarding the correctness of the judgment in P. V. Narasimha Rao (delivered by a five judge bench, with a 3:2 majority).

P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) [(1998) 4 SCC 626].

P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State: A Critique

Source Of Info

SCC Journal

Guest Post: Reconsidering P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State – Bribery, parliamentary votes, and parliamentary immunity

Source Of Info

Constitutional Law and Philosophy

Date Of Fr

2020-07-01