Legislative privilege excludes bribery from constitutional immunity, while protecting State legislators' Rajya Sabha voting under Article 194(2).

Legislative privilege under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) protects the speech or vote itself as an essential parliamentary function, but not a separate offence of bribery completed on acceptance of illegal gratification. The earlier view in PV Narasimha Rao was reconsidered because stare decisis is not inflexible where constitutional values and public interest require review. Bribery connected with a proposed speech or vote remains prosecutable because its criminality is independent of the protected legislative act. Voting by State legislators in Rajya Sabha elections falls within Article 194(2), as it is exercised within the Legislature's constitutional scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier view on parliamentary privilege and bribery required reconsideration, (ii) whether bribery in connection with speech or voting in the legislature is immune from prosecution under Articles 105(2) and 194(2), and (iii) whether voting in elections to the Rajya Sabha falls within the protection of Article 194(2).

Issue (i): whether the earlier view on parliamentary privilege and bribery required reconsideration

Analysis: The doctrine of stare decisis is an important principle, but it is not inflexible. A prior constitutional ruling may be reconsidered where its consequences affect public interest, constitutional values, or the orderly development of law. The prior view in PV Narasimha Rao was examined against the text of the Constitution, the function of parliamentary privilege, and the need to preserve probity in public life. The Court held that reconsideration was justified and consistent with constitutional adjudication.

Conclusion: The earlier majority view was validly reopened and reconsidered.

Issue (ii): whether bribery in connection with speech or voting in the legislature is immune from prosecution under Articles 105(2) and 194(2)

Analysis: Parliamentary privilege exists to secure the effective and fearless functioning of the House and its committees. The privilege is therefore functional and must satisfy a necessity-based test. The phrases "anything said" and "any vote given" protect the speech or vote itself, but not a separate criminal act of accepting illegal gratification. Bribery is complete on acceptance of the bribe or agreement to accept it, and its criminality does not depend on whether the promised vote or speech is ultimately delivered. A criminal prosecution for bribery is thus independent of the protected legislative act and does not fall within the constitutional immunity.

Conclusion: Bribery is not protected by Articles 105(2) and 194(2), and prosecution is maintainable.

Issue (iii): whether voting in elections to the Rajya Sabha falls within the protection of Article 194(2)

Analysis: The text of Article 194(2) extends to anything said or any vote given by a member in the Legislature, and the constitutional scheme distinguishes the Legislature from the sitting House. The vote of elected members of a State Legislative Assembly in Rajya Sabha elections is an integral part of their constitutional responsibilities and is exercised within the Legislature, even if not on the floor of the House in session. The Court held that such voting falls within the protective ambit of Article 194(2).

Conclusion: Rajya Sabha voting by members of a State Legislative Assembly is protected by Article 194(2).

Final Conclusion: The constitutional immunity recognised for legislative speech and voting does not extend to bribery, but it does extend to the act of voting in Rajya Sabha elections by State legislators. The appeal was disposed of after answering the reference in these terms.

Ratio Decidendi: Legislative privilege under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) protects only the speech or vote as an essential legislative function, not a distinct offence of bribery that is complete on acceptance of illegal gratification.

---