Analysis: P.V. Narasimha Rao Case [(1998) 4 SCC 626]

Introduction:

The facts of the case involved in the constitution bench decision in P.V. Narashima Rao v. State are that in 1991 election Congress Party remained 14 members short of the majority and therefore it formed a minority government with P.V. Narashima Rao as the Prime Minister. As there was no Majority in the Lok Sabha the said Government faced No-Confidence Motion but somehow it manages to defeat the motion as the ruling party gave bribery to MPs from two different parties namely Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and Janta Dal Ajit Singh Group who voted in their favor. Consequently, the No-Confidence Motion was defeated with 265 members supporting the continuance of the govt. and 251 voting against the government.

Issues

The two issues placed before the Constitution Bench were:

1. Does Article 105 of the Constitution confer any immunity on a Member of Parliament from being prosecuted in a criminal court for an offense involving offer or acceptance of Bribe?
2. Is a Member of Parliament excluded from the ambit of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the reason that he is not regarded as a “public servant” as defined under Section 2(c) of the said act of 1988?

Held

1. The Constitution by a majority of 3:2 answered the first question in affirmative, holding that bribe-taking and bribe offering Members of Parliament who voted on the No-Confidence Motion are entitled to immunity from Criminal Prosecution for the offenses of bribery and criminal conspiracy conferred on them by Article 105(2) of the Constitution. The majority held that the expression ‘in respect of’ in Article 105(2) is having a very broad interpretation therefore Article 105(2) protects Member of Parliament against any (civil or criminal) proceedings in court that relate to or have a connection with anything said or a vote given by him in the parliament. The court further reasoned that members who took the bribe and did not vote were not given immunity under Article 105(2) because their taking of bribery was not connected with their vote. Similarly, it applies to bribe givers also. Therefore immunity does not extend to non-voting bribe givers and bribe-takers.
2. The court in answer to the second question ruled that the Member of Parliament is a “Public Servant” within Section 2(c) of the 1988 Act. It also concluded that since there is no authority to grant sanction for prosecution of the offending persons for certain offenses, they cannot be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for such offenses.

Reasons for the disagreement with the said judgment along with their substantiation

1. The constitution is a very pious, scared, and an organic document. The constitution to maintain the highest standard of the probity in public life and to keep parliamentary life unblemished has provided detailed qualifications and disqualifications for being chosen as a Member of Parliament including the exclusion of persons from the election convicted of crimes or disqualified for committing corrupt practices at an election or dismissed from public service for doing corrupt practices or holding any office of profit. When the constituent assembly has put so many bars of qualifications and disqualifications only on the entry of the person in the legislature, there could be no question arises of the constituent assembly giving immunity claimed by bribe-taking members of parliament under Article 105(2). The founding fathers who abolished all titles, dignities, powers, and privileges could not ever declare Members of Parliament and the Legislatures of the States as “Super-Citizen”. They could never make provisions in the constitution to condone the commission of offenses against the state including bribery and corruption. Therefore it can be said that the Supreme Court has erred grossly in interpreting Article 105 of the Constitution in the said judgment.
2. Article 105(2) confers immunity in Members of Parliament when they discharge their parliamentary or official duty of “making of speech or giving of votes” in the parliament of any committee thereof. The act of receiving the bribe by a Member of Parliament is not in the pursuance of his parliamentary or official duty therefore it is not entitled to any immunity from criminal prosecution. The immunity under Article 105(2) becomes available to a member when he “makes a speech” or “gives his vote” in the parliamentary proceedings inside the Chambers of Parliament or any Committee. Since the acts involving conspiracy and acceptance of bribe were wholly done outside the 4 walls of the legislative chamber, it did not attract the immunity provisions to protect them from criminal proceedings.
3. Thirdly, these criminal acts themselves constitute completed crimes without any reference to any goings-on in parliament and are capable of proof before the special judge independently of any proof or disproof of the casting of vote by a member in parliament. Therefore such offenses could not be deemed to be as acts “in respect of” the act of “giving of vote” inside the parliament.
4. Article 105(2) may give immunity from the liability arising out of private criminal offenses like defamation, libel, or slander but confers no immunity from criminal prosecution for “public offenses”. No king or state can be expected to confer such immunity which in all probabilities would lead to the destruction of the kingdom or state. This position is evident from the non-applicability of “freedom of arrest” of the members of the house of commons in England in criminal matters, which also remains the legal position under Article 105(3), its application being “limited to civil causes”.
5. An interpretation of Article 105(2)  would enable a member to claim immunity from prosecution for an offense of bribery would not only be repulsive to the healthy development of democratic institutions provided in the constitution but would also be subversive of the constitution itself.

Conclusion

The immunity given to the Member of Parliament can be easily summed up in the statement made by the very renowned and learned judge i.e. Judge Buckley in the case of R V. Currie (1992) “That a Member of Parliament against whom there is a prima facie charge of corruption should be immune from prosecution in the courts of law is to my mind an unacceptable proposition at present. I do not believe it to be the law.” The office of the Member of Parliamentis one of the offices of great honor and dignity and whosoever holds this office has the highest duty of maintaining the dignity of the office must obey all the rules and regulations which the office demands to be obeyed by the person who holds the office. Since there is a lot of corruption taking place in today’s times there is a great need to hold these legislators accountable for what wrong they have done and there is great need that these legislators must follow the required code of conduct.