New Delhi:The Supreme Court said the development of constitutional jurisprudence would virtually come to a standstill if it is “denuded” of its power to reconsider its decisions and stressed, that the court “must not perpetuate a mistaken interpretation of the Constitution, merely because of rigid allegiance to a previous opinion of five judges of this court”.
The apex court said on Monday that the court may review its earlier decisions if it believes that there is an error, or the effect of the decision would harm the interests of the public or if “it is inconsistent with the legal philosophy of the Constitution”. A seven-judge led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said in a deliberative democracy, the aspirations of the people are met by discourse in democratic institutions and meaning to the aspirations of the people is carried out by its representatives through legislative business, deliberations, and dialogue. Parliament is called the “grand inquest of the nation”, it said.
The seven-judge held that MPs and MLAs taking bribes to vote or make a speech in the House are not immune from prosecution, while overturning its 1998 judgment, in the JMM bribery case. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing Sita Soren, had argued that a position of law which has stood undisturbed since 1998 should not be interfered with by the court.
“We do not consider it appropriate for this court to confine itself to such a rigid understanding of the doctrine of stare decisis. The ability of this court to reconsider its decisions is necessary for the organic development of law and the advancement of justice”, said the bench. It added that if this court is denuded of its power to reconsider its decisions, the development of constitutional jurisprudence would virtually come to a standstill. “In the past, this Court has not refrained from reconsidering a prior construction of the Constitution if it proves to be unsound, unworkable, or contrary to public interest”, said the bench.
The bench said it believes that “we must not perpetuate a mistaken interpretation of the Constitution, merely because of rigid allegiance to a previous opinion of five judges of this court”.
The apex court stressed that when the space for deliberation in the legislature shrinks, people resort to conversations and democratic actions outside the legislature. “This privilege of the citizens to scrutinise the proceedings in Parliament is a concomitant right of a deliberative democracy which is a basic feature of the Constitution. Our Constitution intended to create institutions where deliberations, views and counterviews could be expressed freely to facilitate a democratic and peaceful social transformation. Parliament is a quintessential public institution which deliberates on the actualisation of the aspirations of all Indians”, said the bench, adding that freedom of speech in the legislature is hence a privilege essential to every legislative body.
The bench said parliamentary privilege, codified in Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution, is integral to deliberative democracy in facilitating the functioning of a parliamentary form of governance. It ensures that legislators in whom citizens repose their faith can express their views and opinions on the floor of the House without ‘fear or favour’, added the bench.
“With the protection of parliamentary privilege, a legislator belonging to a political party with a minuscule vote share can fearlessly vote on any motion; a legislator from a remote region of the country can raise issues that impact her constituency without the fear of being harassed by legal prosecution; and a legislator can demand accountability without the apprehension of being accused of defamation”, said the bench, adding that a deliberative democracy imagines deliberation as an ethic of good governance and is not restricted to the parliamentary sphere alone.
“In cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution, this Court would do so more readily than in other branches of law because not rectifying a manifest error would be harmful to the public interest and the polity. The period over which the case has held the field is not of primary consequence”, said the apex court.
The bench said that this court has overruled decisions which involve the interpretation of the Constitution even though they have held the field for long periods when they offend the spirit of the Constitution. The 1998 P V Narasimha case judgment had granted immunity to an MP from prosecution in a court of law for voting in a particular manner inside the House even after taking the bribe.
