STATE TIMES NEWS
New Delhi: Bribery can never be a subject matter of immunity and a parliamentary privilege is not meant to place a lawmaker above law, the Centre Thursday told the Supreme Court which reserved its verdict on reconsideration of its judgement of 1998 when it held that MPs and MLAs enjoy immunity from prosecution for taking bribe to make a speech or cast a vote in legislature.
Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta conveyed the Centre’s stand before a seven seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandraachud.
“This is my respectful submission that bribery can never be the subject matter of immunity unless even one out of 1000 cases (of bribery) takes place inside the house,” Mehta told the bench, which also comprised justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra.
Mehta urged the court to not go into the immunity aspect under Article 105 of the Constitution and said, “The offence of bribery is complete when a bribe is given and accepted by the lawmaker. It can be tackled under the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
“I am of the opinion that anything that is clearly proscribed by the statute, cannot have a refuge under these Articles (105 and 194). I do not think any responsible government or public authority can take that stand,” attorney general Venkataramani said.
The top-most government law officer, however, added the elected representative must be free to perform legislative functions without being impaired or exposed to undue “exertions and coercion”.
“Parliamentary privileges are not personal immunity but occupational immunity. They are provided to ensure that the duties of representatives may be carried out perfectly. This immunity is not meant to place a Member of Parliament above the law, but to protect him from possible groundless proceedings or accusations that may be politically motivated…,” solicitor general Mehta said.
At the outset, senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan referred to several judgements and said the consistent point in all was that “nobody enjoys protection against criminal prosecution”.
He dealt with the submission that legislators needed immunity as they were often targeted for their acts inside the House.
“So, while balancing this, you (SC) have to be careful of ensuring that legislators get the immunity which the Constitution intended… If we are doing that, then we have to have some kind of formulation or test on the basis of which we determine the immunity that is deserved,” he said.
He then referred to the recent alleged hate speech made by BJP MP Ramesh Bidhuri in the Lok Sabha and said, “Unfortunately, Your Lordships must have seen a live example of this two weeks ago, when a gentleman hurled expletives in Parliament. I don’t know if the phrase ‘parliamentary language’ can be used anymore after this.”
The parliament ensured that those words were struck off, but in my view it was a crime, he said.
“So an action of criminal defamation would not lie on the basis of the speech?” the bench asked the lawyer.
The senior lawyer responded, “In my view, No. Our hands are tied. Obviously, we find it repulsive. The court’s hands are also tied because that is the deference we give to the parliamentary process.”
The bench said, possibly, the court cannot get into this and say that these offending words of the MP were “unnecessary for the speech”.
“We expect responsible Parliament and parliamentarians to expect more stringent action,” the senior lawyer said.
Another senior advocate Vijay Hasaria supported the reconsideration of the 1998 verdict and gave the example of pendency of more than 5,000 criminal cases against lawmakers.
The court told him it was dealing with the limited issue of bribery in relation to votes cast and speeches made in legislatures.
“Privilege must be interpreted in a manner that will not let criminality among politicians or political class flourish, and will curb criminalisation of politics,” he said.
The solicitor general focussed his submissions on the offence of bribery as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act and said if the offence is completed outside the House, then the court does not need to go into the aspect of immunity enjoyed by a lawmaker for acts done inside the legislature.
“Of course, this is on a very strong footing that bribery is complete outside the house,” the bench said.
