Quick answer
No. In Sita Soren v. Union of India (4 March 2024), a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that a Member of Parliament or of a State Legislature cannot claim immunity under Article 105(2) or Article 194(2) from prosecution for taking a bribe to vote or speak in a certain way. It overruled the 3:2 majority view in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998). The offence of bribery is complete when the legislator accepts the bribe, whether or not the vote is later cast as agreed.
The old view: P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998)
P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), Supreme Court of India, 17 April 1998, five judges. Members of Parliament were accused of taking bribes to vote against a no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha in July 1993. The majority (S.P. Bharucha, J. with S. Rajendra Babu, J., joined on this point by G.N. Ray, J.) read "in respect of" in Article 105(2) broadly and held that the alleged bribe-takers who voted were immune. Ajit Singh, who abstained, and the alleged bribe-givers were not immune. S.C. Agrawal and A.S. Anand, JJ. dissented on immunity.
The present law: Sita Soren (2024)
Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 161, Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019, Supreme Court of India, 4 March 2024. Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh, P.S. Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra, JJ. The appellant, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, was accused of taking a bribe to vote in the 2012 Rajya Sabha election. Held: the majority view in P.V. Narasimha Rao is overruled; bribery is not protected by Articles 105 or 194.
Key holdings in Sita Soren
- Immunity (legal protection from proceedings) under Articles 105 and 194 must be tied to the collective functioning of the House and be necessary for a legislator's essential duties. A claim to immunity for bribery fails both tests.
- "In respect of" means "arising out of" or "bearing a clear relation to", not any remote connection with a speech or vote.
- Taking a bribe is a crime that is not essential to casting a vote or deciding how to vote. The same applies to a speech in the House or a committee.
- The offence of bribery is complete when the bribe is accepted; it does not matter whether the vote is cast as agreed, or at all.
- The criminal court's power to prosecute and the House's power to discipline a member operate in distinct spheres.
- Voting in Rajya Sabha elections by elected members of a Legislative Assembly falls within Article 194(2), but that still does not protect bribery.
Then and now
| Point | P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998) | Sita Soren (2024) |
|---|---|---|
| Bench and result | Five judges, 3:2 | Seven judges, unanimous |
| Meaning of "in respect of" | Broad: any nexus with the vote or speech | Arising out of, or clearly related to, the vote or speech |
| Legislator who took a bribe and voted as agreed | Immune | Not immune |
| Legislator who took a bribe but voted otherwise | Could be prosecuted | Can be prosecuted |
Sita Soren removed the old paradox that protected the legislator who honoured the corrupt deal but not the one who broke it. For a fuller brief of the 1998 case, see P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State.
Aadil, an MLA, accepts money from Farhan to vote for Farhan's candidate in a Rajya Sabha election, but then votes for his own party's candidate. Aadil can still be prosecuted: the offence was complete when he accepted the money, and Article 194(2) does not protect bribery.
Exam point
Sita Soren (2024), a seven-judge unanimous bench, overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998): Articles 105(2) and 194(2) protect genuine legislative work, not a legislator who accepts a bribe for a vote or speech.
