https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753830 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753830 Prosecution for bribery - Corruption - Doctrine of stare decisis - Whether by virtue of Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution a Member of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, as the case may be, can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court? Doctrine of stare decisis - HELD THAT:- The doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law. A larger bench of this Court may reconsider a previous decision in appropriate cases, bearing in mind the tests which have been formulated in the precedents of this Court. The judgment of the majority in PV. NARSIMHA RAO VERSUS STATE (CBI/SPE) [ 1998 (4) TMI 503 - SUPREME COURT] ), which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature who has allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or speaking has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy. There is a grave danger of this Court allowing an error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered. Unlike the House of Commons in the UK, India does not have ancient and undoubted privileges which were vested after a struggle between Parliament and the King. Privileges in pre-independence India were governed by statute in the face of a reluctant colonial government. The statutory privilege transitioned to a constitutional privilege after the commencement of the Constitution - Whether a claim to privilege in a particular case conforms to the parameters of the Constitution is amenable to judicial review. Corruption - Prosecution for bribery - HELD THAT:- An individual member of the legislature cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity under Articles 105 and 194 from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with a vote or speech in the legislature. Such a claim to immunity fails to fulfil the twofold test that the claim is tethered to the collective functioning of the House and that it is necessary to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator - Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution seek to sustain an environment in which debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature. This purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner because of an act of bribery. Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast. The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee - Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life. The interpretation which has been placed on the issue in question in the judgment of the majority in PV Narasimha Rao results in a paradoxical outcome where a legislator is conferred with immunity when they accept a bribe and follow through by voting in the agreed direction. On the other hand, a legislator who agrees to accept a bribe, but eventually decides to vote independently will be prosecuted. Such an interpretation is contrary to the text and purpose of Articles 105 and 194. Appeal disposed off. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530