New Delhi:The Supreme Court has constituted a seven-judge bench to hear the reference of the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao v State (JMM bribery case), which granted immunity to MPs/MLAs from prosecution if they accepted bribery and voted/asked a question in a particular manner. On September 20, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said this judgment will be reviewed by a 7-judge bench.
A notice published today on the apex court website said: “Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Manoj Misra is constituted to hear criminal appeal titled Sita Soren Vs. Union of India on 04.10.2023”.
During the hearing on the matter, on September 20, the apex court had noted that the members of state legislature must be free to express their views on the floor of the House without fear of consequences. “Prima facie, at this stage, we are of the view that correctness of the view of the majority in P V Narasimha Rao should be considered by a larger bench of seven judges….”.
The top court said, “It must be noted that the purpose of Article 105(2) and Article 194 (2) is to ensure that the members of the Parliament and state legislatures are able to discharge their duties in an atmosphere of freedom without fear of consequences which may follow, for the manner in which they speak or exercise their right to vote on the floor of the House”.
The top court said the object clearly is not to set apart the members of the legislature as persons who wield higher privileges in terms of immunity from the general criminal law of the land, which citizens of the land do not possess.
The top court observed that in the course of the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao, Justice SC Agarwal noted that if the construction in support of the immunity under Article 105(2) for a bribe taker were to be accepted, a member would be liable to be prosecuted on a charge for bribery if he accepts bribe for not speaking or not voting for a matter under consideration before the House. The top court said that he would enjoy immunity from prosecution for such a charge if he accepted a bribe for speaking or giving his vote in Parliament in a particular manner.
Also read:SC urges Satyender Jain to diligently participate in proceedings during bail plea hearing