Parliamentary privilege and anti-corruption law: bribery tied to speech or vote is not immunised, and MPs qualify as public servants.

Parliamentary privilege under Article 105(2) protects things said and votes cast in Parliament, but it does not shield an antecedent corrupt bargain or the acceptance or offer of a bribe connected with legislative speech or voting; criminal prosecution for bribery is therefore not barred. A Member of Parliament also falls within the definition of a public servant under the anti-corruption law because parliamentary office involves public duties, but cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 remains subject to sanction under Section 19. The absence of a sanctioning authority does not remove Members of Parliament from the Act, and prosecution on counts outside that sanction requirement may still proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Member of Parliament is immune under Article 105(2) or Article 105(3) of the Constitution from criminal prosecution for receiving or offering a bribe in connection with a speech or vote in Parliament. (ii) Whether a Member of Parliament is a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether prosecution for offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 can proceed in the absence of sanction under Section 19.

Issue (i): Whether a Member of Parliament is immune under Article 105(2) or Article 105(3) of the Constitution from criminal prosecution for receiving or offering a bribe in connection with a speech or vote in Parliament.

Analysis: Article 105(2) was held to confer immunity in respect of things said or votes given in Parliament, but not to create a shield for an antecedent corrupt agreement or the act of taking a bribe. The phrase "in respect of" was construed in the constitutional setting to mean liability arising from the speech or vote itself, not an independent criminal liability for bribery. Article 105(3) was held not to extend to a privilege for bribery, because no such immunity for bribery by members of Parliament was shown to have existed in the House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution. The protection of parliamentary freedom could not be expanded into a charter for corruption.

Conclusion: A Member of Parliament has no immunity under Article 105(2) or Article 105(3) from prosecution for bribery connected with parliamentary speech or voting.

Issue (ii): Whether a Member of Parliament is a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether prosecution for offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 can proceed in the absence of sanction under Section 19.

Analysis: A Member of Parliament was held to hold an office and to perform public duties within Section 2(c)(viii), because parliamentary membership is a substantive public position carrying constitutional responsibilities. Section 19 was treated as a restriction on cognizance for specified offences, not as a provision that removes a public servant from the Act altogether. However, since no authority competent to remove a Member of Parliament was identified, sanction could not be obtained for offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15. That infirmity did not exclude Members of Parliament from the definition of public servant, but it did prevent prosecution for those sanctioned offences in the absence of legislative amendment. Prosecution for offences not covered by Section 19, including conspiracy and Section 12, was not barred on that ground. The separate view required prior permission of the Speaker or Chairman before filing the charge-sheet for the sanctioned offences.

Conclusion: A Member of Parliament is a public servant under Section 2(c), but prosecution for offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 cannot proceed without sanction under Section 19, and the absence of a sanctioning authority does not take the Member outside the Act.

Final Conclusion: The Constitution Bench rejected parliamentary immunity for bribery-related criminal liability, held that Members of Parliament fall within the definition of public servant under the anti-corruption law, and left only the sanction issue to limit cognizance for specified offences while permitting the connected prosecution to continue on the remaining counts.

Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional immunity for parliamentary speech and voting does not extend to an independent offence of bribery or criminal conspiracy to corrupt legislative conduct; and the definition of public servant under the anti-corruption statute applies on its own terms, even if cognizance for particular offences is conditioned by sanction.

Concurring Opinion: G.N. Ray, J. agreed that a Member of Parliament is a public servant and that sanction is required for the specified offences, but differed on Article 105 and held that the prosecuting agency should obtain the permission of the Speaker or Chairman before filing the charge-sheet for offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15.

---