# P.V. NARASIMHA RAO ETC. ETC v. STATE (CBl/SPE) ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1998] 2 S.C.R. 870
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-04-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 1207-1208of1997
- **Bench:** S.C. Agra Wal, G.N. Ray, Dr. A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha Ands. Rajendra Babu
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-v-narasimha-rao-etc-etc-v-state-cbl-spe-etc-etc-16432
- **Pages:** 146

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article I 05 (2)-/mmunity of Member of Parliament
jiwn prosecution in respect of vote given in Parliament-Fourteen Member~
C of Parliament (MPs) alleged to have received bribes ji-om other MPs in order
to defeat motion of no-confidence against government of the da}~Motion of
no-confidence defeated-Prosecution for offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) ands. 120-B Jndiw1 Penal Code (/PC) launched
against both bribe takers and bribe givers-Whether bribe givers and bribe
D takers being MPs could claim immunity jiwn prosecution-Held, Per majority,
bribe givers do not enjoy immunity under Article 105 (2) and the trial
against them for substantive offences under s-12 PCA and s.120-B IPC must
proceed; fi1rther held, bribe takers entitled to immunity conferred by Article
105 (2)-Per Minority held, an MP does not enjoy immunity under Article
I 05 (2) from being prosecuted for offence of offer or acceptance of bribe for
E purpose of speaking or by giving his vote in Parliament or in any com mi/lees
thereof
F
Constitution of India, Article 105 (3)-Whether, on facts, MPs giving
bribes could seek immuni~v ji-om prosecution-Held, no.
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, s.2(c)-Whether Member of
Parliament a public servant-Held, yes-Indian Penal Code I860, s.21lnterprelation of Statutes.
Criminal Law-Preventi<;m of Corruption Act I 988, s.19 rlw ss. 7, I 0,
I 1, 13 and I 5 thereof-Sanction for prosecution of MP for offence of offer and
G acceptance of bribes for voting in Parliament-Held, per majority-MPs
cannot be prosecwed for offences under Ss. 7, I 0, I I and I 3 PCA for want
of an authority competent lo grant sanction thereof-Per Minority held, in
absence of sanction court can take cognisance of offences mentioned in
s.19(1) but before filing charge sheet prosecuting agency shall obtain
permission of Chairman of Rajya Sabha or Speaker of Lok Sabha as the case
H may be.
870
f
P.V. NARASIMHA RAO v. STATE (CBI/SPE)
871
On July 26, 1993, a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok A
Sabha against the minority government of PVN. The support of 14 member
was needed to have the no-confidence motion defeated. On July 28, I 993, the
no-confidence motion was lost, 251 members having voted in support and 265
against. Four Members of Parliament (MPs) owing allegiance to the JMM,
six MPs owing allegiance to the JD (AS) group voterl against the nonconfidence motion. AS, an MP owing allegiance to the JD (AS) abstained B
from voting thereon.
The case of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was that the
abovenament !V(Ps agreed to and did receive bribes, to the giving of which
PVN, MP and Prime Minister, and nine others including three MPs and four C
MLAs were parties, to vote against the non-confidence motion. A prosecution
being launched against the aforesaid alleged bribe givers and bribe takers
subsequent to the vote upon the non-confidence motion, cognizance was
taken by the Special Judge, Delhi.
The persons sought to be charged as aforesaid filed petitions in the D
High Court at Delhi seeking to quash the charges. The High court dismissed
•
the partitions. In this court the appeals were heard by a bench of three
learned judges and then referred to a Constitution Bench. The appellants
contended that under Article 105 they were immune from the prosecution
and that, in any event, they could not be prosecuted under the Prevention of E
Corruption Act, 1988. (PCA).
Disposing of the appeals, this court.
HELD : Per Majority (Bharucha, J. for himself and S. Rajendera Babu,
J. with G.N. Ray, J. concurring):
F
I. Appellants were public servants, being either members of Parliament
or a State legislature, when cognizance of the charges against them was
taken. They were charged with substantive offences under s.120-B of the
IPC and s.12 of the PCA. Since no prior sanction was required in respect G
of the charge under s.12 PCA, the trial on all charges against them had to
proceed. (941-H; 942-A(
2.1. The alleged

## Text

_Characters 0–39,724 of 377,341. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39724 for what follows._

A
B
P.V. NARASIMHA RAO ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE (CBl/SPE) ETC. ETC.
APRIL 17, 1998
[S.C. AGRA WAL, G.N. RAY, DR. A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA
ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.]
Constitution of India, Article I 05 (2)-/mmunity of Member of Parliament
jiwn prosecution in respect of vote given in Parliament-Fourteen Member~
C of Parliament (MPs) alleged to have received bribes ji-om other MPs in order
to defeat motion of no-confidence against government of the da}~Motion of
no-confidence defeated-Prosecution for offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) ands. 120-B Jndiw1 Penal Code (/PC) launched
against both bribe takers and bribe givers-Whether bribe givers and bribe
D takers being MPs could claim immunity jiwn prosecution-Held, Per majority,
bribe givers do not enjoy immunity under Article 105 (2) and the trial
against them for substantive offences under s-12 PCA and s.120-B IPC must
proceed; fi1rther held, bribe takers entitled to immunity conferred by Article
105 (2)-Per Minority held, an MP does not enjoy immunity under Article
I 05 (2) from being prosecuted for offence of offer or acceptance of bribe for
E purpose of speaking or by giving his vote in Parliament or in any com mi/lees
thereof
F
Constitution of India, Article 105 (3)-Whether, on facts, MPs giving
bribes could seek immuni~v ji-om prosecution-Held, no.
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, s.2(c)-Whether Member of
Parliament a public servant-Held, yes-Indian Penal Code I860, s.21lnterprelation of Statutes.
Criminal Law-Preventi<;m of Corruption Act I 988, s.19 rlw ss. 7, I 0,
I 1, 13 and I 5 thereof-Sanction for prosecution of MP for offence of offer and
G acceptance of bribes for voting in Parliament-Held, per majority-MPs
cannot be prosecwed for offences under Ss. 7, I 0, I I and I 3 PCA for want
of an authority competent lo grant sanction thereof-Per Minority held, in
absence of sanction court can take cognisance of offences mentioned in
s.19(1) but before filing charge sheet prosecuting agency shall obtain
permission of Chairman of Rajya Sabha or Speaker of Lok Sabha as the case
H may be.
870
f
P.V. NARASIMHA RAO v. STATE (CBI/SPE)
871
On July 26, 1993, a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok A
Sabha against the minority government of PVN. The support of 14 member
was needed to have the no-confidence motion defeated. On July 28, I 993, the
no-confidence motion was lost, 251 members having voted in support and 265
against. Four Members of Parliament (MPs) owing allegiance to the JMM,
six MPs owing allegiance to the JD (AS) group voterl against the nonconfidence motion. AS, an MP owing allegiance to the JD (AS) abstained B
from voting thereon.
The case of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was that the
abovenament !V(Ps agreed to and did receive bribes, to the giving of which
PVN, MP and Prime Minister, and nine others including three MPs and four C
MLAs were parties, to vote against the non-confidence motion. A prosecution
being launched against the aforesaid alleged bribe givers and bribe takers
subsequent to the vote upon the non-confidence motion, cognizance was
taken by the Special Judge, Delhi.
The persons sought to be charged as aforesaid filed petitions in the D
High Court at Delhi seeking to quash the charges. The High court dismissed
•
the partitions. In this court the appeals were heard by a bench of three
learned judges and then referred to a Constitution Bench. The appellants
contended that under Article 105 they were immune from the prosecution
and that, in any event, they could not be prosecuted under the Prevention of E
Corruption Act, 1988. (PCA).
Disposing of the appeals, this court.
HELD : Per Majority (Bharucha, J. for himself and S. Rajendera Babu,
J. with G.N. Ray, J. concurring):
F
I. Appellants were public servants, being either members of Parliament
or a State legislature, when cognizance of the charges against them was
taken. They were charged with substantive offences under s.120-B of the
IPC and s.12 of the PCA. Since no prior sanction was required in respect G
of the charge under s.12 PCA, the trial on all charges against them had to
proceed. (941-H; 942-A(
2.1. The alleged bribe takers, other than AS, had the protection of
Article I 05 (2) and were not answerable in a Court of law for the alleged
conspiracy and agreement. The charges against them had to fail. (907-H) H
•
872
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A
2.2 Article I 05 (2) did not provide that what was otherwise an offence
was not an offence when committed by an MP and had a connection with his
speech or vote therein. An MP was not answerable in a court of law for
something that had a nexus in his speech or vote in Parliament. If an MP
had, by his speech or vote in Parliament, committed an offence, he enjoyed,
by reason of Article 105 (2), immunity from prosecution therefor.
B
[908-C-D)
2.3. Those who had conspired with the MP in the commission of that
offence had no such immunity. They could, therefore, be prosecuted for it.
[908-D-E]
Pandit M.S.M.Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha, [1959] Supp. I SCR
C 806; Dr. Jatishi Chandra Ghosh v. Hari Sadhan Mukherjee, [1961] 3 SCR
486; Special Reference No. I of 1964, [1965] 1 SCR 412; TK. Jain v. NS.
Reddy, [1978] 1SCR612 and State of Karnataka v. Union of India, [1978]
2 SCR I, referred to.
D
Bradlaugh v. Gossett., 12 Q.B.D. 271; Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. &
E.I; Church of Scientlogy of California v. Johnson Smith, (1972) All E.R.
378; Prebb/e v. Television New Zealand Ltd., (1994) 3 All., E.R. 407; R. v.
Currie; R v. White 13 SCR (NSW) 332; R. v. Bunting, (1885) Ontario
Reports 524; R. v. Boston, (1923) 33 Commonwealth Law Reports 386;
United States v. Daniel B.Brewster, 33 L. Ed. 2d 507; United States v. Thomas
E F. Johnson, 15 L. Ed. 2d 681; Fletcherv. Peck, 3 L. Ex. 162 and United States
i•. Henry He/stoski, 61 L. Ed. 2d 12, referred to.
F
The Report of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in
Police Life, chaired by Lord Salmon (1976); The Law Commission, England
Consultation Paper (No.145);" Legislating the Criminal Code-Corruption";
Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 11para37; The Library
of Congress publication" The Constitution of United States of America,
Analysis and Interpretation"; Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges,
Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 22nd Ed., referred to.
G
3. The provisions of Article 105 (3) were not attracted and they did not
render assistance to the alleged bribe givers. [914-B]
Ex Parte Wason (1869) L.R. 4 QBD 573, referred to.
Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage
H of Parliament, 18th Ed. (1971) and 22nd ed., referred to .
•
..
P.V. NARASIMHARAOv. STATE (CBI/SPE)
873
4. The expression "in respect or' has to receive a broad meaning, that A
the alleged conspiracy and agreement had a nexus to and were in respect of
those votes and that the proposed inquiry in the criminal proceedings was
in regard to the motivation thereof. 1905-B]
Tolaram Relumal v. The State of Bombay, 119551 1 SCR 158 and State
of Madras v. Mis Swastik Tobacco Factory, 119661 3 SCR 79, referred to. B
Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Courts, 119631 2 All ER 722; Asher
v. Seaford Court Estates Ltd, (1950) A.C. 508 and Bieber ltd. v. Commissioners
of Income-tax, (1962) 3 All E.R. 294, referred to.
5.1. The coverage of section 2(c) of the PCA was far wider than that C
ofs.21 IPC. The two provisions had only to be looked at side by side to be
sure that more people could now be called public servants for the purposes
of the anti-corruption law. The words "public servant" in s.19 had to be~r
the meaning attributed to them on the construction of the definition thereof
in s.2(c). [926-D-FI
D
5.2. There was no reason to resort to extraneous aids of interpretation
such as the speech of the Minister piloting the Bill that became the said Act.
The true interpretation of a statute did not depend upon who urged it. The
principle of promissory estoppel had no application in this behalf. 1926-E]
6.1. A member of Parliament, or of a Legislative Assembly, was a
public servant for the purposes of the PCA. A member of Parliament, or of
a Legislative Assembly, held an office and was required and authorized
thereby to carry out a public duty. 1930-G-HI
E
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, 119841 2 SCR 495; Habibullah Khan v. f
State of Orissa, (1993) Cr. L.J.,.3604; S.A. Venkataraman v. The State, 119581
SCR 1040 and K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, 1199113 SCR 189, referred
to.
6.2. Members of Parliament would not be liable to be prosecuted for
offences covered by Sections 7, 10, 11,13 and 15, the condition of prior G
sanction being incapable of being statisfied, bu(they would remain liable to
prosecution for offences under the said Act other than those covered by the
said provisions. 1933-DI
6.3. S.19 contemplated that for every public servant there had to be an
authority competent to remove him from his office. But if no authority could H
874
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1998] 2 S .C.R.
A be identified in the case of a public servant it could not lead to the conclusion
that he was not a public servant. 1933-BI
6.4. The President could not be said to be the authority competent to
~ ~
remove a member of Parliament from his office.1935-AI
B
7. The trial against Accused 12 and 13, who were at all relevant times
private persons, had to proceed on all charges. When cognizance of the
charges against them was taken, accused Nos. 7 and 9 were not public
servants. The question of sanction for their prosecution, did not therefore,
arise and the tri;il on all charges against them had to proceed. 1941-F-G]
C
8. AS, not having cast a vote on the no-confidence motion, derived no
immunity from Article 105 (2). As was a public servant, being an MP when
cognizance of the charges against him was taken. He was charged with
substantive offences under s. 1208 IPC and ss.7 and 13 (2) of the PCA. The
trial of the charge against him under s.120B IPC had to proceed. 1942-B]
D
Per Minority (Agrawal, J. for himself and Dr. A.S. Anand, J.)
I.I. A Member of Parliament did not enjoy immunity under Article
105(2) or under Article IO!'i(3) of the Constitution from being prosecuted
before a criminal court for an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe
for the purpose of speaking or by giving his vote in Parliament or in any
E committees thereof. J942-FJ
1.2. The protection granted under Article I 05(2) could not be invoked
by any of the appellants to claim immunity from prosecution on the substantive
charge in respect of the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(2) read with
13(I)(d) and 12 of the PCA as well as the charge of criminal conspiracy
F under s.120B IPC read with ss.7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the PCA.
1983-GJ
t.3. An interpretation of the provisions of Article I 05(2) which would
enable a Member of Parliament to claim immunity from prosecution in a
criminal court for an offence of bribery in connection with anything said by
G him or a vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof and
thereby place such Members above the law would not only be repugnant to
healthy functioning of Parliamentary democracy but would also be subversive
of the Rule of Law which is also an essential part of the basic structure of
the Constitution. J980-B]
H
1.4. The criminal liability incurred by a Member of Parliament who
I
f
....
P.V. NARASIMHA RAOv. STATE(CBl/SPE)
875
has accepted bribe for speaking or giving his vote in Parliament in a particular A
manner thus arises independently of the making of the speech or giving of
vote by the Member and the said liability cannot, therefore, be regarded as
a liability in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament.
1983-FI
Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha, 119591Supp.1 SCR B
806 at p. 856, and special Rreference No. 1of19641196511SCR413; Te)
Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Redddy, (197111 SCR 612; The State of Tripura
v. The Province of East Bengal, 119511 2 SCR 1; Tolaram Relumal v. The
State of Bombay, (195511SCR158, and S.S. Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. Upper
Doab Sugar Mills Ltd, [1960[ 2 SCR 926, referred to.
c
Bradlaugh v. Gossett., [1884] 12 ABD 271; R v. Currie; R. v. White, 12
SCR (NSW) 332; R. v. Boston, (1923] 33 CLR 386; R v. Bunting (1884-5)
7 Ontario Reports 524; United States v. Johnson, 15 L Ed 2d 681; Burton
v. United States, 202 US 344; United States v. Brewster 33 L Ed 2d 507, and
United States v. Helstoski 61 Ed., 2d 12; Church of Scientology of California
v. Johnson Smith, [1972] l All ER 378; Prebble v. Television New Zealand D
Ltd, [1994] 3 All ER 407 and Paterson v. Chadwick, [19741 2 All ER 772,
referred to.
May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st Ed., p. 128; Royal Commission on
Standards of Conduct in Public Life, Bribery of Members of Parliament and
the Criminal Law by Graham Zellick, (1979] Public Law, P. 31 at pp 39-40; E
The Committee on Standards in Public Life, Lord Nolan (Nolan Committee);
Conflict of Interest: A commonwealth Study of Members of Parliament by
Gerard Carney, p. 1241; The Bribed Congressman's Immunity from Prosecution,
(1965-66) 75 Yale L.J. 335, at p. 341 and M.N. Kaul & S.L. Shakdher:
Practice and Procedure of Parliament, 4th Ed., at p. 254, referred to.
F
2. The words 'in respect of' in Article 105 (2) should be constructed
to mean 'arising out of'. Thus constructed, the immunity conferred
thereunder would be confined to liability that arose out of or was attributable
to something that had been said or to a vote that had been given by a Member
in Parliament for any committee thereof. The immunity would be available G
only if the speech that had been made or the vote that had been given was
an essential and integral part of the cause of action for the proceedings
giving rise to the liability. [981-C-D]
State of Madras v. Mis Swastik Tobacco Factory, Vedaranyam, (1966]
3 SCR 79 and Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, H
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1998] 2 S.C.R.
A 119911 4 sec 699, referred to.
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 26 L. Ed. 377, referred to.
3. The offence of bribery would be made out against the receiver if he
took or agreed to take money for promise to act in a certain way. The offence
B was complete with the acceptance of the money or on the agreement to accept
the money being concluded and was not dependent on the performance of the
illegal premises by the receiver. The receiver of the money would be treated
to have committed the offence even when he defaulted in the illegal bargain.
1982-FI
4. Clause (3) of Article 105 of the Constitution could not be invoked
C by the appellants to claim immunity from prosecution in respect of the
charge levelled against them. Since offering of bribe to a Member of
Parliament and acceptance of bribe by him had not been treated as an offence
at common law by the courts in England, when the Constitution was adopted
in 1950, the fact that such conduct was being treated as a breach of privilege
by the House of Commons in England at the time would not necessarily mean
D that the courts would have been precluded from trying the offence of bribery
committed by a Member of Parliament if it were to be treated as an offence.
[986-C-F]
5.1. A Member of Parliament is a public servant for the purpose of the
PCA. An MP beld an office and by virtue of such office, required or authorised
E to perform duties and such duties were in the nature of public duties.
[997-E]
5.2. The words used in sub-clause (viii) of s.2(c) were clear and could
not be cut down on the basis of the statement made by the Minister while
piloting the Bill in Parliament. 11003-BI
F
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, IJ 9841 2 SCR 495; Statement (Private) Ltd
v. H.R. Deb, (1968] 3 SCR 614; Mahadeo v. Shantibhai, (1969] 2 SCR 422;
Kanta Kathuria v. Manakchand Surana, 11970( 2 SCR 835; Habibullah
Khan v. State of Orissa, (1993] Cri. LJ 3604; K.P. Verghese v. Income Tax
Officer, (1982] I SCR 629; State o/Orissa v. Mahanadi Coal Fields, (19961
G Supp. 2 686; Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India, ( 1989] 3 SCR
43; Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, (1953] SCR I and Sanjeev Coke
Munufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, 1198311 SCR 1000, referred
to.
McMillan v. Guest, [1942] AC 561 Horne v. Barber, 11920] 27 CLR
H 494; Pepper v. Hart, (1993] 1 All ER 42 and Black-Clawson International
..
P.Y. NARASIMHA RAO v. STATE (CBl/SPE)[BHARUCHA. J.]
877
Ltd. v. Papierworke Waldhhof Oxford Shoter English Dictionary, 3rd Ed. p. A
~ '
1362, referred to.
6. Since there was no authority competent to remove an MP and to
grant sanction for his prosecution under S.19(1) of the PCA, the court could
take cognizance of the offences mentioned in s.19(1) in the absence of
sanction but till provision was made by Parliament in that regard by suitable B
amendment in the law, the prosecuting agency, before filing a charge-sheet
in respect of an offence punishable under Ss. 7,I0,11,13 and 15 of the PCA
against an MP in a criminal court, shall obtain the permission of the
Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the case may
be. (IO 15-B-C)
c
K. Veeraswamiv. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCR 189; SA. Venkataraman
v. The State, 11958) SCR 1037 and Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, (19921
Supp 2 SCC 651, referred to.
May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st ed., pp.179-180 and HOP Debate D
Vol IX, (1954), CC 3447-48, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
1207-1208of1997 Etc. Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.97 of the Delhi High Court in
Crl. R. No. 194-195 of 1997.
E
Ashok H. Desai, Attorney General, T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor General,
P.P. Rao, Kapil Sibal, Dr. D.D. Thakur, Ranjit Kumar, Anu Mohla, LC. Pandey,
C. Paramasivam, Ajay Telesara, Jamshed Bey, Rakhi Roy, Ms. Bina Gupta, Dr.
Surat Singh, Ashok Mahajan, P.P. Singh, Chandrasheker, Girish Ananthamurthy, F
..,
B.Y. Kulkarni, Navin Prakash, Arnn Bhardwaj, K.C. Kaushik, Manish Sharma,
..,,. .
D.Prakash Reddy, L. Nageshwara Rao, Ms. lndu Malhotra, Rajiv Dutta Akhilesh
Kumar Pandey, Bharat Sangal, R.P. Wadhwani, P.K. Manohar, P.Parmeswaran
A. Mariarputham and Dr. S.C. Jain for the appearing parties.
..
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
G
BHARUCHA, J. On 26th July, 1993, a motion of no-confidence was
moved in the Lok Sabha against the minority government of P.V. Narasimha
Rao. The support of 14 members was needed to have the no-confidence
motion defeated. On 28th July, 1993, the no-confidence motion was lost, 251
members having voted in support and 265 against. Suraj Manda!, Shibu H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A Soren, Simon Marandi and Shailender Mahto, members of the Lok Sabha
owing allegiance to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (the JMM), and Ram Lakhan
Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, Abhay Pratap
Singh and Haji Gulam Mohammed, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance
to the Janata Dal, Ajit Singh group (the J.D., A.S.), voted against the noconfidence motion. Ajit Singh, a member of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance
B to the J.D., A.S., abstained from voting thereon.
It is the respondents, case that the abovenamed members agreed to and
did receive bribes, to the giving of which P.V. Narasimha Rao, M.P. and Prime
Minister, Satish Sharma, M.P. and Minister, Buta Singh, M.P. V. Rajeswar Rao,
C M.P., N.M. Ravanna, Ram Linga Reddy, M.L.A., M.Veerappa Moily, M.L.A.
and ChiefMir.ister, State of Kamataka, D.K.Adikeshavulu, M. Thimmogowda
and Bhajan Lal, M.L.A. And Chief Minister, State of Haryana, were parties,
to vote against the no-confidence motion. A prosecution being launched
against the aforesaid alleged bribe givers and bribe takers subsequent to the
vote upon the no-confidence motion, cognizance was taken by the Special
D Judge, Delhi.
E
F
G
H
The Charge framed against P.V. Narasimha Rao reads thus:
"That you P.V. Narasimha Rao between July and August, 1993 at
Delhi and Bangalore were party to a criminal conspiracy and agreed
to or entered into an agreement with your co-accused Capt. Sa ti sh
Sharma, Buta Singh, V. Rajeshwara rao, HM Revanna, Ramlinga Reddy,
M.Veerappa Moiley, D.K. Audi Keshvalu, M. Thimmegowda, Bhajan
Lal, JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha) MPs Suraj Manda!, Shibu Soren,
Simon Marandi, Shailendra Mahto (approver, since granted pardon
on 8.4.97), Janta Dal (Ajit Group) MPs Ajit Singh, Ram Lakhan Singh
Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadi Chran Das, Abhay
Pratap Singh, Haji Ghulam Mohd. Khan and late G.C. Munda to defeat
the no-confidence motion moved on 26.7.93 against the then Congress
(I) Govt. headed by you by illegal means viz. to offer or cause to offer
and pay gratification other than the legal remuneration to your coaccused persons namely J.M.M. and Janta Dal (A) MPs named above
as a motive or reward for their helping in defeating the said no
confidence motion moved by the opposition parties and in pursuance
of the said agreement you paid or caused to pay several lacs of rupees
to the above referred JMM and Jania Dal (A) MPs who obtained or
attempted to obtain the same in the manner stated above and thereby
you have committed an offence punishable u/S 120 B IPC r/w Sections
•
r
-
,•
P.V. NARASIMHA RAO v. STA TE (CBl/SPE) [BHARUCHA, J.)
879
7, 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(i)(d) of the PC Act 1988 and within my cognizance. A
Secondly you P.V. Narasimha Rao in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal
conspiracy during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places
abetted the commission of offence punishable u/S 7 of P.C. Act by
above referred JMM and Janta Dal (A) MPs and thereby you have B
committed an offence punishable u/S 12 of the P.C. Act and within my
cognizance.
"Similar charges were framed against the other alleged bribe givers.
The charge framed against Suraj Manda! of the J.M.M. reads thus:
C
"Firstly you between July and August, 1993 at Delhi and Bangalore
were party to a criminal conspiracy and agreed to or enter into an
agreement with your co-accused P.V. Narasimha Rao, Capt. Satish
Sharma, Buta Singh, V. Rajeshwara Rao, H.M. Revanna, Ramlinga
Reddy, M.Veerappa Moiley, D.K. Audi Keshvalu. M, Thimmegowda, D
Bhajan Lal, JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha) MPs Shibu Soren, Simon
Marandi, Shailendra Mehto (Approver, since granted pardon on 8.4.97),
Janta Dal (Ajit Group) MPs, Ajit Singh, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav,
Roshan Lal, Anadi Chran Dass, Abhey Partap Singh, Haji Ghulam
Mohd. Khan and late G.C. Munda to defeat the no confidence motion E
moved against the then Congress (I) Government headed by accused
Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao on 26.7.93 by illegal means viz. To obtain or
agree to obtain gratification other than legal remunerations from your
above named accused persons other than JMM and Janta Dal (A)
MPs as a motive or reward for defeating the no confidence motion and
in pursuance thereof above named accused persons other than JMM F
and Janta Dal (A) passed on several lacs of rupees to you or your
other co-accused namely JMM and Janta Dal (A) MPs which amounts
were accepted by you or your said co-accused persons and thereby
you have committed an offence punishable u/S 1208 r/w Sections
7,12,13(2) r/w section 13(i)(d) of the P.C. Act and within my cognizance. G
Secondly, that you being a public servant while functioning in
your capacity of Member of Parliament (I 0th Lok Sabha) during the
aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places in pursuance of the
aforesaid conspiracy demanded and accepted from your co-accused
other than JMM & JD(A) MPs mentioned above a sum of Rs. 280 lacs H
A
B
c
D
E
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1998] 2 S.C.R.
for yourself and other JMM MPs named above other than your legal
remuneration as a motive or reward for defeating above referred no
confidence motion moved against the then Govt. of Congress (!)
headed by your co-acc:used Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao and thereby yo4
have committed an offence punishable u/S 7 the P.C. Act and within
my cognizance.
Thirdly, you during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid
places being a public servant while functioning in your aforesaid
capacity of Member of Parliament by corrupt or illegal means and by
abusing your position as a said public servant obtained for yourself
or your other co-accused i.e. JMM MPs named above the pecuniary
advantage to the extent of Rs.280 lacs and thereby committed an
offence punishable u/S 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of P.C. Act and
within my cognizance.
Fourthly, that you during the pendency of investigation of present
case while writ petition No.789/96 was pending disposal in Hon'ble
High Court between February to April, 1996 at Delhi, Ranchi and other
places intentionally caused to bring false evidence into existence by
fabricating or causing to fabricate the documents or records i.e. books
of accounts, proceeding books, etc. of JMM Central Office, Ranchi for
the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceedings and
thereby committed an offence u/S 193 !PC and within my cognizance.
Similar charges were framed against the other alleged bribe takers of the
J.M.M. Similar charges were also framed against the alleged bribe takers of
the J.D., A.S., except that there was no charge against them under Section 193
F of the Indian Penal Code. Shailender Mahto of the J.M.M., it may be mentioned,
later turned approver and was pardoned.
The persons sought to be charged as aforesaid filed petitions in the
High Court at Delhi seeking to quash the charges. By the judgment and order
G which is under challenge, the High Court dismissed the petitions. Hence,
these appeals. The appeals were heard by a bench of three learned judges·
and then referred to a Constitution Bench. The argument on behalf of the
appellants to be considered by the Constitution Bench, broadly put, is that,
by virtue of the provisions of Article 105, they are immune from the prosecution
and that, in any event, they cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of
H Corruption Act, 1988.
P.V. NARAS!MHA RAO v. STATE (CB!/SPE) [BHARUCHA, J.)
881
Privilege.
Article 105 of the Constitution reads thus:
"105. Powers, privileges, etc., of the House of Parliament and of the
members and committees thereof. -
A
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and B
standing order regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall. be
freedom of speech in Parliamen.t
(2) No Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any
court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament
or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect C
of the publication by or under the authority of either House of
Parliament of any report, papers, votes or proceedings.
(3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each
House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each
House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament j)
by law, and until so defined shall be those of that House and of its
members and committees immediately before the coming into force of
section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
(4) The provisions of clauses (I), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to E
persons who by virtue of this constitution have the right to speak in,
and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament
or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of the
Parliament."
Mr. P.P. Rao addressed us on behalf of P.V. Narasimha Rao, Mr. D.D. F
Thakur on behalf of Satish Sharma, Mr. Kapil Sibal on behalf of
Bhajan Lal and Dr. Surat Singh on behalf of some of the J.D., A.S.
M.Ps. All of them relied upon sub article (2) of Article 105. Only Mr.
P.P. Rao, learned counsel for P.V. Narasimha Rao, relied, in addition,
upon sub article(3) thereof.
G
Article 105(2).
By reason of sub-article (I) of Article 105, members of Parliament enjoy
freedom of speech subject only to the provisions of the Constitution and the
rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament. That express
provision is made for freedom of speech in Parliament in sub-article (I) of H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A Article 105 suggests that th is freedom is independent of the freedom of
speech conferred by Article 19 and unrestricted by the exceptions contained
therein. This is recognition of the fact that members need to be free of all
constraints in the matter of what they say in Parliament if they are effectively
to represent their constituencies in its deliberations. Sub-article (2) of Article
B
105 puts negatively what sub-article (I) states affirmatively. Both sub-articles
must be read together to determine their content. By reason of the first part
of sub-article (2) no member is answerable in a com1 of law or any similar
tribunal for what he has said in Parliament. This again is recognition of the
fact that a member needs the freedom to say what he thinks is right in
Parliament undeterred by the fear of being proceeded against. A vote, whether
C cast by voice or gesture or the aid of a machine, is treated as an extension
of speech or a substitute for speech and is given the protection that the
spoken word has. Two comments need to be made in regard to the plain
language of the first part of sub-article (2). First, what has protection is what
has been said and a vote that has been cast, not something that might have
been said but was not, or a vote that might have been cast but was not.
D Secondly, the protection is broad, being "in respect of'. It is so given to
secure the freedom of speech in Parliament that sub-article (I) provides for.
It is necessary, given the role members of Parliament must perform. The
protection is absolute against court proceedings that have a nexus with what
has been said, or a vote that has been cast in Parliament. The second part
E of sub-article (2) provides that no person shall be liable to any proceedings
in any court in respect of the publication of any report, papers, votes or
proceedings if the publication is by or under the authority of either House
of Parliament. A person who publishes a report or papers or votes or
proceedings by or under the authority of Parliament is thereby given protection
in the same broad terms against liability to proceedings in any court connected
F with such publication. The constitution having dealt with the all - important
privilege of members of Parliament to speak and vote therein as they deem
fit, freed of the fear of attracting legal proceedings concerning what they say
or how they vote, provides for other powers, privileges and immunities is subarticle (3). Till defined by Parliament by enactment, they are such as were
G enjoyed before the Constitution came into force; that is to say, they are such
as were enjoyed by the House of Commons just before 26th January, 1950.
For it to be established that any power, privilege or immunity exists under
sub-article (3), it must be shown that that power, privilege or immunity had
been recognised as inhering in the House of Commons at the commencement
of the Constitution. So important was the freedom to speak and vote in
H Parliament thought to be that it was expressly provided for, not left to be
P.V. NARASIMHA RAO v. STATE (CEJI/SPE) [BHARUCHA, J.]
883
\
gathered, as other powers, privileges and immunities were, from the House of A
Commons. In so far as the immunity that attaches to what is spoken in
-
'
Parliament and to a vote given therein is concerned, provision is made in subarticle (2); it is only in other respects that sub-article (3) applies. For the sake
of completeness, though we are not here concerned with it, we must add that
sub-ahicle ( 4) gives the protection of the Sub-articles that preceded it to all B
who have the right to address the House, for example, the Attorney General.
The provisions of Article l 05 and of Article I 94, which is in the same
terms but deals with the privileges of Legislative Assemblies, have been
examined by this Court in the past. In the case of Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v.
Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others, [ 1959) Supp. I S.C.R. 806, a portion of the C
speech made by a member of a Legislative Assembly had been expunged by
the orders of the Speaker. Nonetheless, the speech was published in its
entirety in a newspaper of which the petitioner was the editor. He was called
upon to show cause why action should not be taken against him for breach
of privilege of the Legislative Assembly and he challenged the notice by a
petition under Article 32. S.R. Das, C.J., speaking for the majority on the D
Constitution Bench which heard the writ petition, observed that Parliamentary
privilege in England was defined in May's Parliamentary Practice as "the sum
of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part
of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually,
without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed E
those possessed by other bodies or individuals". The privileges of the House
of Commons, as distinct from those of the House of Lords, were dtfined as
"the sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual members
as against the prerogatives of the CFown, the authority of the ordinary courts
of law and the special rights of the House of Lords". The privileges of the
House of Commons included the freedom of speech, which had been claimed F
in 1554. This comprised the right of the House to provide for the due
composition of its own body, the right to regulate its own proceedings, the
right to exclude stranger, the right to prohibit publication of its debates and
the right to enforce observation of its privileges by fine, imprisonment and
expulsion. For delib~rative bodies like the House of Lords and Commons, this G
Court said, "freedom of speech is of the utmost importance. A full and free
debate is of the essence of Parliamentary democracy." The argument that the
whole of article 194 was subject to Article 19(1)(a) overlooked the provisions
of article 194(2). The right conferred on a citizen under Article 19(1 )(a) could
be restricted by a law which fell within sub-article 2 of that Article and he
could be made liable in a court of law for breach of such law, but Article 194(2) H
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A categorically laid down that no member of the legislature was to be made
liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote
given by him in the Legislature or in committees thereof and that no person
would be liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of the
House of such a Legislature of any report, paper or proceedings. The provisions
B of Article 194(2), therefore, indicated that the freedom of speech referred to
in sub-article (I) thereof was different from the freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed under Article 19(1 )(a) and could not be cut down in
any way by any law contemplated by Article 19(2). A law made by Parliament
in pursuance of the earlier part of Article I 05(3) or by a State Legislature in
pursuance of the earlier part of Article 194(3) was not law made in exercise
C of constituent power but law made in exercise of ordinary legislative power
under Article 246 read with the relevant entries. Consequently, if such a law
took away or abridged any of the fundamental rights, it would contravene the
peremptory provisions of Article 13(2) and would be void to the extent of
such contravention. It might well be that that was the reason why Parliament
D and the State Legislatures had not made laws defining their powers, privileges
and immunities. It did not, however, follow that if the powrs, privileges or
immunities conferred by the latter part of Articles I 05 and 194 were repugnant
to the fundamental rights, they would be void to the extent of such repugnancy.
It could not be overlooked that the provisions of Articles 105(3) and 194(3)
were constitutional law and not ordinary law made by Parliament or the State
E Legislatures and that, therefore, they were as supreme as the provisions of
part III of the Constitution. Further, quite conceivably, the Constitution makers,
not knowing what powers, privileges and immunities Parliament or the State
Legislatures might claim, thought fit not to take any risk and made such laws
subject to the provisions of Article 13; but that, knowing and being satisfied
F with the reasonableness of the powers, privileges and immunities of the
House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution, they did not,
in their wisdom, think fit to make such powers, privileges and immunities
subject to the fundamental right conferred by Article 19(l)(a).
The case of Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh v. Hari Sadhan Mukherjee,
G [1961] 3 S.C.R. 486, dealt with an appellant who was a member ofa Legislative
Assembly. He had given notice of his intention to put certain questions in
the Assembly. The questions being disallowed by the Speaker, he had
published them in a journal in his constituency. The first respondent, whose
conduct was the subject-matter of the questions, filed a complaint under the
Indian Penal Code against the appellant and the printer and publisher of the
H journal. The appellant pleaded privilege and immunity under Article 194 of the
I ...
P. V. NARASIMHA RAO v. STA TE (CBl/SPE) [BHARUCHA, J.]
885
Constitution as a bar to criminal prosecution. The claim of absolute privilege A
was disallowed by this Court. It was said, with reference to the law in England
-
...
in respect of the privileges and immunities of the House of Commons, that
there was no absolute privilege attaching to the publication of extracts from
proceedings in the House. So far as a member of the House of Commons was
concerned, he had an absolute privilege in respect of what he had spoken
within the four walls of the House, but there was only a qualified privilege B
in his favour even in respect of what he had himself said in the House if he
caused the same to be published in the public press. The legal position, which
was undisputed, was that unless the appellant could make out an absolute
privilege in his favour in respect of the publication which was the subjectmatter of the charge, the prosecution against him could not be quashed. He C
having no such absolute privilege, it was held that "he must take his trial and
enter upon his defence, such as he may have."
Special Reference No. I of 1964, [1965] I S.C.R. 412 known more
commonly as Keshav Singh 's case or the Privileges case, deals extensively
with the scope of the privileges of legislative bodies. The Presidential Reference D
was made in the following circumstances: The Legislative Assembly of the
State of Uttar Pradesh committed one Keshav Singh, not one of its members,
to prison for contempt. The warrant it issued was a general warrant, in that
it did not set out the facts which had been found to be contumacious. Keshav
Singh moved a petition under Article 226 challenging his committal and he E
prayed for bail. Two learned judges of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court
ordered that Keshav Singh be released on bail pending the decision on the
writ petition. The Legislative Assembly passed a resolution requiring the
production in custody before it of Keshav Singh, the advocate who had
appeared for him and the two judges who had granted him bail. The judges
and the advocate filed writ petitions before the High Court at Allahabad. A F
Full Bench of the High Court admitted their petitions and ordered the stay
of the execution of the Assembly's resolution. The Legislative Assembly
modified its earlier resolution so that the two judges were now asked to
appear before the House and offer an explanation. The President thereupon
made the Special Reference.