P.V Narashima Rao vs. State

Author: Bagya Shree L

Edited By: Rimin Cherian Reji

ABSTRACT

In the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. State, the Supreme Court decided whether MP are protected by parliamentary immunity under Article 105 of the Indian Constitution from prosecution for bribery and conspiracy related to their voting behavior. The Court ruled that MPs are not immune from prosecution for bribery and conspiracy if these actions are not directly related to their parliamentary duties. Immunity applies only to activities tied to parliamentary functions, not to illegal actions like accepting bribes.

This case highlights the procedure for how criminal prosecution should take place when the offense is committed by a Member of Parliament. The Court admits that Members of Parliament are the public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 even if they are not appointed but elected. This case signifies that even lawmakers are punishable if they are acting against law and order.

Keywords: Bribe, Parliament, Immunity, Article 105 of The Indian Constitution, Public Servant, Corruption.

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

In the landmark case, P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. State, the Supreme Court of India heard the appeal in 1998. The appellant was one of 21 people accused of bribery and criminal conspiracy. The appellant argued that, as a Member of Parliament, he had immunity under Article 105 of the Indian Constitution. He also states that he is not a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act as he is not appointed but elected by the people. This article emphasizes the constitutional and legal issues surrounding parliamentary privileges and corruption.

This case plays a major role in understanding the balance between parliamentary immunity and the legal framework governing corruption. It explores whether MPs, under parliamentary immunity, could be protected from prosecution of a criminal nature. Whether Members of Parliament are covered under the provision of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act even though they are not elected.

Background:

PV Narasimha Rao vs. State (1998) by the prestigious Supreme Court is one of the landmark cases. This verdict highlights how the law prevails even if it is against the former Prime Minister who was involved in bribery and a criminal conspiracy with members of Parliament to defeat the no-confidence motion. This judgment emphasized the supremacy of the law

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

The accused argued that the court had no jurisdiction under Article 105(2) of the Constitution, as the case involved Members of Parliament (MPs) accepting bribes related to their voting on a ‘No Confidence Motion’. However, the Special Judge rejected this objection, stating that the charges were for illegal acts committed outside Parliament, specifically accepting bribes, rather than for voting actions within Parliament. The accused

interpreted that members of parliament are not public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, of 1988. Hence, he is not guilty under these provisions, This claim by the accused was dismissed based on the precedent of the Delhi High Court. Furthermore, the accused contented for the prosecution of such case prior sanction from the competent authority of the parliamentary is necessary. The judge ruled this unnecessary, as the accused had stopped holding office by the time the charge sheets were filed and cognizance was taken by the court.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the accused about issues of the scope of Article 105 and the title of public servant, and its applicability to MP’s. Then appeals were filed by the appellants, for the interpretation of Articl105 and the scope of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act to members of parliament, which were heard by a bench of three judges and subsequently referred to the Constitution Bench.

Factual Background of the Case

There were 21 accused, including the former PM P.V. Narasimha Rao, alleged to have a criminal conspiracy on both offering and accepting bribes by the (MPs) from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and Janata Dal (Ajit Group) to defeat a ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Congress (I) Government in July-August 1993. The charges framed against the accused were under Sections 7, 12, 13(2) along with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the IPC.

The prosecution argued that the alleged bribe givers paid these amounts to ensure the motion’s defeat. Shailender Mahto of JMM, who later turned approver, was pardoned. The court noted that the alleged conspiracy and bribes had a direct effect on the votes cast against the no-confidence motion, implying that the votes were influenced by the bribes.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether Article 105 of the Indian Constitution amounts to immunity for the prosecution of a criminal charge, especially a bribe to the Member of Parliament.
2. Whether the Members of Parliament are under the provision of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986.

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the appellant submitted that Article 105(2) grants Members of Parliament immunity from legal proceedings for anything they said or voted in Parliament or its committees. This provision ensures that MPs can freely speak and act in Parliament without fear of legal repercussions, preserving their independence and effectiveness. The learned counsel contended that this immunity should be interpreted broadly to protect MPs from prosecution related to their legislative duties, including charges of bribery connected to parliamentary activities.

The learned counsel referred to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Johnson case, where prosecution based on a speech made in the House was deemed a violation of legislative immunity principles.

The learned counsel argued that The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 defines public servants broadly. MPs are elected representatives who act on behalf of their constituents, and they are not traditional public servants employed by the government. Therefore, the title of public servant does not apply to the Members of Parliament.

The counsel also noted that foreign countries’ practices for the classification of legislators do not usually include the title of public servant for anti-corruption laws, maintaining their independence and distinction from government employees.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the respondent side submitted that Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution grants immunity to MPs within the ambit of speeches and votes in Parliament session, to protect legislative activities and ensure parliamentary freedom. This ambit does not extend to criminal liability. Legal precedents, including Brewster, Bunting, White, Boston, and R v. Currie & Ors, support that the fact bribery is not covered by parliamentary immunity.

The learned counsel submitted that The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 defines public servants broadly, encompassing various government officials and elected representatives, whereas elected representatives include MPs. MP’s fall within the scope of public servants under Section 2(c) of the Act due to their positions of public trust and responsibility. The Act aims to combat corruption among all public officials, including MPs, as supported by judicial interpretations and practices in other jurisdictions.

The counsel argued that the doctrine of promissory estoppels does not apply to statutory definitions. Statements by a Minister during the Bill’s introduction do not alter the legal definition of public servant.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 105 of The Indian Constitution
2. Section 2(c) of The Prevention of Corruption Act

JUDGMENT

Ratio Decidendi

The court’s reason for such a decision is that Members of Parliament are public servants under the provision of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and shall be held liable for such an act of accepting and giving bribes. Moreover, for such legal action, permission has to be taken from the competent parliamentary authorities.

Obiter Dicta

Justice Ray agreed with the finding that MPs are public servants and require permission for prosecution. However, he disagreed with the reasoning that MPs do not have immunity under Article 105(2) or 105(3) for bribery related to their duties. He emphasized the importance of providing broad protection for MPs to ensure the effective functioning of parliamentary parliament.

GUIDELINES:

Absolute Freedom of Speech and Vote by Members of Parliament in Parliament under Article 105 of The Indian Constitution.

Protection against legal proceedings within the ambit of any speech and vote cast in parliament during the parliament session under Article 105(2) of The Indian Constitution.

Interpretation of “In Respect Of”: The phrase “in respect of” in Article 105(2) should be interpreted broadly, covering any action linked to an MP’s parliamentary speech or vote.

Sub-Article (3) Privileges: Until defined by Parliament, MPs enjoy the same privileges as those of the House of Commons at the commencement of the Indian Constitution.

CONCLUSION& COMMENTS

In the case of PV Narasimha Rao vs. State (1998), the Supreme Court pronounced that the Members of Parliament are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; they can be prosecuted for criminal liability during the performance of Parliamentary duties. The Court pronounced that although MPs have certain privileges and immunities under Article 105 of the Constitution, these do not cover bribery. Instead of needing formal sanction from an authority, MPs only need permission from the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or the Speaker of the Lok Sabha for prosecution. This decision emphasized that law is supreme even before legislators make that law for the people.

This ruling was a key moment in Indian legal history, highlighting that even top officials, including the Prime Minister, must follow the law. By limiting parliamentary immunity, the Supreme Court stressed the need for accountability and integrity in government. No matter what happens, the law remains supreme and no one is above it, not even those who make the law.

Important Cases Referred

1. L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation
2. United States v. Johnson.

Important Statutes Referred

1. The Indian Constitution
2. The Indian Penal Code

• The Criminal Procedure Code

1. The Prevention Of Corruption Act.