In a groundbreaking decision on March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of India unanimously ruled that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) cannot claim immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution when accused of accepting bribes. 

This landmark verdict, delivered by a Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, PV Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra overruled a previous judgment from 1998 and clarified the boundaries of legislative immunity.

Article 105(2) provides MPs immunity from prosecution for anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament or on any parliamentary committee, while Article 194(2) grants similar protection to MLAs. The Court held that these provisions are meant to protect the collective functioning of the legislative house and facilitate free deliberations. However, it explicitly stated that bribery is not covered by parliamentary privilege.

The Court's decision focused on the essence of legislative immunity, emphasizing that it is designed to enable legislators to express their views and vote freely without fear of legal consequences. The judgment clarified that immunity applies only to collective functions, such as the free exchange of ideas in Parliament, and does not shield legislators from criminal charges related to bribery.

The ruling overturned a previous judgment in the case of PV Narasimha Rao v. State, which had granted immunity to legislators, even for accepting bribes to influence their votes. The Court deemed this interpretation as posing a grave danger and chose to overrule it, asserting that bribery erodes the foundation of Indian constitutional democracy.

The case that prompted this landmark decision involved Sita Soren, the sister-in-law of former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren. Sita Soren was accused of accepting a bribe to vote for a particular candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha Elections. The Supreme Court's decision clarified that just the act of taking a bribe is sufficient to expose a legislator to criminal charges, regardless of whether the legislator takes any further action in response to the bribe.

The judgment stressed that bribery undermines probity in public life, emphasizing that the offense is complete when a bribe is accepted. The Court's interpretation of Articles 105(2) and 194(2) as not providing immunity for bribery extends to both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha proceedings, including the election of the Vice-President.

The ruling came after the Court referred the matter to a seven-judge Constitution Bench to reconsider the 1998 judgment in PV Narasimha Rao. During the hearings, the Attorney General suggested a functional test for immunity, but the Court rejected the idea of blanket immunity, stating that immunity applies only to actions and speeches directly related to the discharge of legislative duties.

Case: Sita Soren v. Union of India,

Crl.A. No.-000451-000451 / 2019.