Bribery
Corruption and bribery by MLAs—Effect on public life—Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life.
[Para 188.8]
Corruption and bribery by MLAs—Offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the agreed action and crystallizes on the exchange of illegal gratification—It does not matter whether the vote is cast in the agreed direction or if the vote is cast at all—Offence of bribery is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe.
[Para 188.11]
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 105 & 194—Protection of immunity—Whether a Member of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, as the case may be, can claim immunity from prosecution on the charge of bribery in connection with their speech or vote—An individual member of the legislature cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution 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.
[Para 188.4]
Articles 105 & 194—Protection of immunity—Charge of bribery against MPs/MLAs in connection with their speech or vote—Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution of India seek to sustain an environment in which debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature—Such purpose is destroyed when a member is induced to vote or speak in a certain manner because of an act of bribery.
[188.5]
Articles 105 & 194—Protection of immunity—Charge of bribery against MPs/MLAs in connection with their speech or vote—Expressions “anything” and “any” must be read in the context of the accompanying expressions in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution of India—Words “in respect of” means ‘arising out of’ or ‘bearing a clear relation to’ and cannot be interpreted to mean anything which may have even a remote connection with the speech or vote given.
[Para 188.6]
Articles 105 & 194—Protection of immunity—Whether a Member of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, as the case may be, can claim immunity from prosecution on the charge of bribery in connection with their speech or vote—Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 of the Constitution 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—Same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee.
[Para 188.7]
Criminal Court
Jurisdiction—Charge of bribery against MPs/MLAs in connection with their speech or vote—Jurisdiction which is exercised by a competent court to prosecute a criminal offence and the authority of the House to take action for a breach of discipline in relation to the acceptance of a bribe by a member of the legislature exist in distinct spheres—Scope, purpose and consequences of the court exercising jurisdiction in relation to a criminal offence and the authority of the House to discipline its members are different—Potential of misuse against individual members of the legislature is neither enhanced nor diminished by recognizing the jurisdiction of the court to prosecute a member of the legislature who is alleged to have indulged in an act of bribery.
[Para 188.9 & 188.10]
Doctrine
Stare decisis—Doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law—A larger bench of the Apex Court may reconsider a previous decision in appropriate cases, bearing in mind the tests which have been formulated in the precedents of the Apex Court.
[Paras 188.1]
Judicial Review
Whether a claim to privilege in a particular case conforms to the parameters of the Constitution is amenable to judicial review.
[Para 188.3]
Parliamentary Privilege
Assertion of a privilege by an individual member of Parliament or Legislature would be governed by a twofold test—First, the privilege claimed has to be tethered to the collective functioning of the House, and second, its necessity must bear a functional relationship to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.
[Para 91]