SITA SOREN vs UNION OF INDIA, 2024
Case Title and Citation
Sita Soren v. Union of India 2024 INSC 161 (4 March 2024)
Factual Background
The matter originated from a 2012 election in Jharkhand to fill two vacant Rajya Sabha seats. The Petitioner, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, was charged with bribery and criminal conspiracy after a CBI investigation alleged that she solicited and received a bribe (of approximately ₹1.5 crore) from a candidate in exchange for casting her vote in his favor. It was noted, however, that the Petitioner ultimately voted for a candidate belonging to her own political party, not the alleged bribe-giver. The Petitioner attempted to dismiss the criminal charges in the Jharkhand High Court by invoking legislative immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, citing the precedent set by the earlier Supreme Court Constitution Bench decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998). The High Court denied the relief, concluding that because she had not voted for the bribe-giver, she was not protected by the immunity. The Petitioner’s appeal led the Supreme Court to refer the case to a Seven Judge Bench to reconsider the fundamental question regarding the scope of immunity for bribery concerning legislative actions.
Issue(s)
Does a legislator (Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly) enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution under Articles 105(2) or 194(2) of the Constitution for engaging in the offense of accepting a bribe to influence their speech or vote in the Legislature?
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Seven Judge Constitution Bench unanimously overruled the majority decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao [5, 188.1]. The Court held that members of the legislature are not entitled to immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution when facing charges related to acts of bribery [5, 188.7].
Reason for the decision
- Bribery Undermines Democracy: Bribery in legislative acts is considered destructive to the deliberative and aspirational ideals of the Constitution, gravely eroding probity in public life and compromising the integrity of parliamentary democracy [8, 104, 208, 286, 188.8].
- Failure of the Necessity Test: Immunity claimed by an individual legislator must satisfy a twofold test: it must be tied to the collective functioning of the House and bear a functional relationship to the essential duties of a legislator [91, 185, 188.4]. Accepting a bribe is an unlawful act and is not deemed necessary or essential for a member to cast a vote or deliver a speech [8, 162, 188.7, 287].
- Scope of Immunity: The phrase “in respect of” in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) must be interpreted narrowly to mean “arising out of” or “bearing a clear relation to” the legislative action (speech or vote) itself, not merely having a remote connection [105, 188.6, 205].
- Completion of Offence: The crime of bribery is complete the moment the legislator accepts the illegal gratification or agrees to accept it [9, 107, 211, 188.11]. The offense is independent of the subsequent legislative action (or lack thereof) [211, 237, 188.11]. Whether the legislator ultimately follows through with the promised vote is irrelevant to whether the crime of bribery has been committed.
- Avoiding Anomalous Results: The previous interpretation created an artificial paradox where a legislator who took a bribe and performed the illegal bargain was protected, while one who took the bribe but refused to vote as directed (like the Petitioner in this case) was subject to prosecution. The new ruling eliminates this distinction [188.12].
- Parallel Jurisdiction: The House’s authority to take disciplinary action (like expulsion) for breach of privilege operates in a distinct sphere from the criminal court’s jurisdiction to prosecute offenses under ordinary criminal law [110, 113, 188.9]. Immunity does not exempt legislators from the general application of the law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court definitively established that constitutional immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) does not protect legislators who engage in bribery related to their functions [5, 188.7]. The Court held that the prosecution of bribery is a matter for the criminal courts. Furthermore, the Court clarified that voting in elections for the Rajya Sabha constitutes a functioning duty of the legislative assembly members and is covered by the protection of Article 194(2). However, this inclusion does not protect a member from prosecution for an underlying act of bribery related to that vote. The appeal was disposed of based on this new interpretation of law.
Case Materials
Link to Judgment (PDF)
Day 1 of Arguments: 4 October 2023 (Argument Transcripts) | (Video Recording)
Day 2 of Arguments: 5 October 2023 (Argument Transcripts) | (Video Recording)
