P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State

Elections to the tenth Lok Sabha were held in 1991. Congress became the largest party but formed a minority government, with P. V. Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister. In July 1993, the opposition moved a no-confidence motion. To survive, the government needed the support of about fourteen more M.P.s.

The motion failed and the government survived. Some M.P.s, especially from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (J.M.M.) and a group within the Janata Dal, voted for the government. It was later alleged that they had been bribed to do so, with lakhs of rupees paid to manipulate their votes, and that Narasimha Rao and a few other leaders were part of this bribery conspiracy. A complaint of criminal conspiracy was filed and the C.B.I. investigated. The special judge took cognizance, and the matter reached the Supreme Court. In November 1997 it was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

Later story (Sita Soren): In 2012, during a Rajya Sabha election in Jharkhand, J.M.M. M.L.A. Sita Soren allegedly took a bribe from an independent candidate but voted for her own party's candidate. When a case was registered, she claimed immunity under Article 194(2) relying on the 1998 judgment. The Jharkhand High Court rejected her plea. In the Supreme Court, a two-judge bench (23 September 2014) referred the matter to three judges; the three-judge bench (2019) referred it to a larger bench; and a five-judge bench (2023), doubting the 1998 judgment, referred it to a seven-judge Constitution Bench.

1. Does Article 105(2) give M.P.s immunity from criminal proceedings for a vote given in the House, even if the vote was given after taking a bribe?

2. Is an M.P. a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

3. (In Sita Soren, 2024) Was the 1998 judgment correct, and can a legislator who takes a bribe for a vote or speech claim protection under Article 105(2) or Article 194(2)?

Majority view (1998): "In respect of" should be read very broadly. The bribery conspiracy was directly connected to the vote, so the immunity extended to it.

Minority view (1998): The offence of taking a bribe was complete even before the vote was cast. It was not "in respect of" the vote but a separate offence altogether.

In Sita Soren, the appellant argued that she was protected under Article 194(2) because the 1998 Narasimha Rao judgment had granted M.P.s and M.L.A.s immunity.

1998 decision: On 17 April 1998, the Supreme Court held by a 3:2 majority that M.P.s and M.L.A.s have immunity for a speech or vote in the House even if the vote was given after taking a bribe. Justice S. P. Bharucha wrote the majority opinion for himself and Justice S. Rajendra Babu; Justice G. N. Ray agreed with the result. Justices S. C. Agrawal and A. S. Anand dissented.

As a result, an M.P. who took a bribe and voted as promised got immunity. But the bribe-givers got no immunity, and an M.P. who took a bribe but did not vote (such as Ajit Singh, who stayed away from voting) got no protection, because he cast no vote.

On the second question, the Court held that an M.P. is a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Since there is no authority competent to remove an M.P., the sanction requirement under that Act did not apply. Instead, permission should be taken from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha before filing a charge sheet.

2024 decision: On 4 March 2024, in Sita Soren v. Union of India, a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud unanimously overruled the 1998 judgment. It held that bribery and corruption get no protection under Article 105(2) or Article 194(2). An M.P. or M.L.A. who takes a bribe for a vote or speech must face criminal prosecution. In effect, the 1998 minority view was accepted as correct.

Constitution of India, Article 105(2); Constitution of India, Article 194(2); Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

This case shows how the Supreme Court can correct its own earlier view. Students must know both stages: the 3:2 immunity ruling of 1998 and its unanimous overruling by seven judges in 2024. It is central to questions on parliamentary privileges, the meaning of "in respect of" in Article 105(2), whether M.P.s are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and accountability of legislators. The "paradox" created by the 1998 judgment and its removal in 2024 is a favourite exam point. It is also linked with Raja Ram Pal on the scope of parliamentary privileges.

Hypothetical: Prince is an M.L.A. Before a Rajya Sabha election, Farhan, an independent candidate, pays Prince money to vote for him. Prince takes the money but votes for his own party's candidate. Under the 1998 view, Prince had no immunity because he did not vote as promised. Strangely, he would have been protected if he had voted for Farhan. Under Sita Soren (2024), it does not matter how Prince votes. The offence was complete when he accepted the money, so Prince cannot claim protection under Article 194(2) and can be prosecuted. Farhan, the bribe-giver, never had immunity under either view.