Syllabus: GS-II, Subject: Polity, Topic: Legislature, Issue: Privileges
Why in news:
- Recently A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that:
- Lawmakers facing bribery charges in connection with their speech and votes in the House cannot be immune from criminal prosecution.
- Claims to parliamentary privilege by lawmakers can be subject to judicial review.
- Only Parliament cannot have the last word on the issue.
Parliamentary privileges:
- Article 105(2) of the Constitution grants immunity to Members of Parliament regarding their speeches and votes in Parliament or its committees. (Member of state assembly under Article 194(2))
- It extends to publications authorized by Parliament or state assemblies.
Supreme Court’s interpretation on law of privileges
- Privilege in India originate from constitution.
- Two types of privilege– collective and individual
- Use of privilege is based on necessity principle- privilege must be such that without it “they could not discharge their functions”
- Accepting bribes contradicts probity in public life and erodes democratic ideals.
- Even without a quid pro quo, accepting a bribe constitutes an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Creating an exceptional class of public servants with extraordinary protection violates Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.
- Both the court and Parliament could exercise jurisdiction on the actions of lawmakers in parallel.
- Because the purpose of punishment by the House is different from the purpose of a criminal trial.
| +1 Advantage for mains (Supreme Court’s observation on corruption):
· “Corruption and bribery by members of the legislature deprive citizens of a responsible, responsive and representative democracy” P.V. Narasimha Rao v State (CBI/SPE) (The ratio which has been reversed): · Legislators enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery in matters connected to their speech and votes in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. |
