A five judges bench of the Supreme Court consisting of 5 judges bench comprising of Chief Justice of India has referred the matter of immunity enjoyed by the members of parliament and the legislative assembly to a bench of 7 judges.

The bench comprised of CJI DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra which heard the matter for the whole day.

While rising the chief justice indicated that this issue has been pending for a long period of time and this bench has heard the matter substantially, therefore, he will add 2 more judges to the same bench and settle the controversy once and for all.

The Supreme Court's 5 judges bench had given certain immunities to the members of the Parliaments for the bribe taken by them outside the house for something doing in parliament or not doing in the parliament.

In the case of PV Narasimha, the Apex Court held that:-

"Our conclusion is that the alleged bribe takers, other than Ajit Singh, have the protection of Article 105(2) and are not answerable in a court of law for the alleged conspiracy and agreement. The charges against them must fail. Ajit Singh, not having cast a vote on the no- confidence motion, derives no immunity from Article 105(2).

What is the effect of this upon the alleged bribe givers? In the first place, the prosecution against Ajit Singh would proceed, he not having voted on the non- confidence motion and, therefore, not having the protection of Article 105(2). The charge against the alleged bribe givers of conspiracy and agreement with Ajit Singh to do an unlawful act would, therefore, proceed."

"We think that the view of the Orissa High Court that a member of a Legislative Assembly is a public servant is correct."

And finally it was held as under:-

"We have held that the alleged bribe takers who voted upon the no-confidence motion, that is, Suraj Mandal Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi, Shailender Mehto, Ram Lakhan Sing Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, Abhay Pratap Singh and Haji Gulam Mohammed (accused nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21) are entitled to the immunity conferred by Article 105(2).

D.K. Adikeshavulu and M. Thimmogowda (accused nos.12 and 13) were at all relevant times private persons. The trial on all charges against them must proceed.

When cognizance of the charges against them was taken, Buta Singh and N.M. Ravanna (accused nos. 7 and 9) were not public servants. The question of sanction for their prosecution, does not, therefore, arise and the trial on all charges against them must proceed.

P.V. Narasimha Rao, Satish Sharma, V. Rajeswar Rao, Ram Linga Reddy, M. Veerappa Moily and Bhajan Lal(accused nos.1. 2 8, 10, 11 and 14) were public servants, being either members of Parliament or a State legislature, when cognizance of the charges against them was taken. They are charged with substantive offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the said Act. Since no prior sanction is required in respect of the charge under Section 12 of the said Act, the trial on all charges against them must proceed.

Ajit Singh (accused no.15) was a public servant, being member of Parliament, when cognizance of the charges against him was taken. He is charged with substantive offences under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 and 13(2) of the said Act. The trial of the charge against him under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code must proceed.

The appeals shall now be placed before a bench of three learned judges for hearing, on any other points that may be involved, and final disposal."

Article 105 of the Constitution reads provides pevillages to the MP and MLA: "105. Powers, privileges, etc., of the House of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof. -

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing order regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.

(2) NO Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, papers, votes or proceedings.

(3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House. shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and until so defined shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment ) Act, 1978.

(4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this constitution to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of the Parliament."