Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday lauded the Supreme Court verdict in the JMM bribery case as a “great judgment”, saying it will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system. The Supreme Court held that MPs and MLAs do not enjoy immunity from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or cast a vote in the legislature.

“A great judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which will ensure clean politics and deepen people’s faith in the system,” Modi wrote on X (formally Twitter).

A seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud unanimously overruled the 1998 verdict delivered by a five-judge bench in the JMM bribery case by which MPs and MLAs were granted immunity from prosecution for taking bribe to make a speech or vote in the legislature.

Also Read | Vote-for-bribe: ‘Disagree with PV Narasimha Rao case verdict,’ says Supreme Court | Top 5 quotes

The bench also comprised justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.

Reading out the unanimous verdict on behalf of the bench, the CJI held that individual members of the legislature cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity under Articles 105 and 194 from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with the vote or speech in the legislature.

1998 verdict

In 1998, a five-judge constitution bench held in its majority verdict on the Narasimha Rao versus CBI case that parliamentarians have immunity against criminal prosecution for any speech made and vote cast inside the House under Articles 105(2) and 194(2).

Also Read | Vote-for-bribe: Supreme Court says no immunity from prosecution to MPs, MLAs, overrules 1998 PV Narasimha Rao verdict

The seven-judge bench was reconsidering the 1998 judgment. pronouncing the verdict, CJI Chandrachud said Article 105 of the Constitution seeks to sustain an environment to have deliberations by the lawmakers in the House and this atmosphere is vitiated when a member is bribed to deliver a speech.

Justice Chandrachud said the privileges claimed must have a nexus to the collective functioning of the House and must have a relationship with the essential functions of a legislator which he or she has to discharge.

SC had reserved the verdict

The seven-judge bench had reserved its judgment in the matter on October 5 last year. During the arguments, the Centre had submitted that bribery can never be a subject matter of immunity and a parliamentary privilege is not meant to place a lawmaker above law.

The Supreme Court, in the course of the hearing, had said it would examine whether the immunity granted to lawmakers from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in Parliament and state legislatures extends to them even if criminality is attached to their actions.

On September 20, 2023, the top court had agreed to reconsider its 1998 judgment, saying it was an important issue having a significant bearing on “morality of polity”.

What’s the JMM bribery case?

The issue came under the Supreme Court’s lens in 2019, when a bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing an appeal filed by Sita Soren, JMM MLA from Jama and daughter-in-law of party chief Shibu Soren. She was an accused in the JMM bribery scandal.

The Gogoi-led bench had referred to a five-judge bench the matter, noting it had “wide ramification” and was of “substantial public importance”.

Sita Soren was accused of taking bribes to vote for a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha election in 2012. She contended that the constitutional provision granting lawmakers immunity from prosecution, which saw her father-in-law being let off the hook in the JMM bribery scandal, be applied to her.

She moved the apex court against the Jharkhand high court order of February 17, 2014, refusing to quash the criminal case lodged against her.

The three-judge bench had then said it would revisit the apex court verdict in the JMM bribery case involving Shibu Soren, a former Jharkhand chief minister and ex-union minister, and four other party MPs who had accepted bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion threatening the survival of the P V Narasimha Rao government in 1993.

The Narasimha Rao government, which was in a minority, survived the no-confidence vote with their support.

The CBI registered a case against Soren and four other JMM Lok Sabha MPs but the Supreme Court quashed it citing immunity from prosecution they enjoyed under Article 105(2) of the Constitution.

(With inputs from agencies)