# Sita Soren v. Union of India

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 161
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-03-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019
- **Bench:** Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, M. M. Sundresh, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.B. Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sita-soren-v-union-of-india-37608
- **Pages:** 123

## Headnote

Instant Reference pertains to reconsideration of the correctness
of the view of the majority judgment in *PV Narasimha Rao's case
granting immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature
who has allegedly engaged in bribery for speaking or casting a vote.
Headnotes
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 196 - Powers, privileges
and immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature, as
the case may be, and of members and committees - Member of
Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, if can claim immunity
from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court -
Reconsideration of the correctness of the majority view in*PV
Narasimha Rao's case which grants immunity from prosecution
to a member of the legislature who has allegedly engaged in
bribery for casting a vote or speaking:
Held: Judgment of the majority in *PV Narasimha Rao's case
has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and
parliamentary democracy - There is a grave danger of this Court
allowing an error to be perpetuated if decision not reconsidered
- Thus, said case not concurred with and overruled. [Para 188]
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 196 - Powers, privileges
and immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature,
and of members and committees - Allegation against the
member of Legislative Assembly that she accepted bribe from
an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favour
in the Rajya Sabha elections, however, in an open ballot, she
did not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver but
her own party candidate - Chargesheet against the member -
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
463
Sita Soren v. Union of India
Petition for quashing of criminal charges, claiming protection
of Art.194(2), relying on *PV Narasimha Rao's case that member
would enjoy immunity from prosecution for accepting bribe
for speaking or giving their vote in Parliament - Rejected by
the High Court - Matter before the Supreme Court where the
two-judge bench referred the matter to three-judge bench, who
further referred to five-judges bench - Bench of five-judges
doubted the correctness of *PV Narasimha Rao wherein the
majority judgment held that the legislator is conferred with
immunity when they accept bribe for speaking or giving their
vote in Parliament, whereas minority held that giving bribe
to influence legislator to vote or speak in Parliament, not
protected by Arts. 105(2) and 194(2), and referred the matter
to bench of seven judges:
Held: Interpretation placed on the issue in question in the judgment
of the majority in *PV Narasimha Rao's case results in a paradoxical
outcome - Such an interpretation is contrary to the text and purpose
of Arts. 105 and 194 - Reconsidering *PV Narasimha Rao's case
does not violate the principle of stare decisis - Members of the
House or indeed the House itself cannot claim privileges which are
not essentially related to their functioning - Constitution envisions
probity in public life - Corruption and bribery of members of the
legislature erode the foundation of the Parliamentary democracy
- Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege - Delivery of
result irrelevant to the offence of bribery - Voting for elections to
the Rajya Sabha falls within the ambit of Art. 194(2) - Thus, said
case not concurred with and overruled. [Paras D, G, I, 188]
Judicial Precedent - Overruling of the long-settled law in *PV
Narasimha Rao's case, if warranted:
Held : Period of time over which the case has held the field is not
of primary consequence - It is not appropriate for this Court to
confine itself to a rigid understanding of the doctrine of stare decisis
- Ability of this Court to reconsider its decisions is necessary for
the organic development of law and the advancement of justice - If
this Court is denuded of its power to reconsider its decisions, the
development of constitutional jurisprudence would virtually come to
a standstill - Thus, reconsidering *PV Narasimha Rao's case does
not violate the prin

## Text

_Characters 0–39,885 of 275,975. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39885 for what follows._

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 462 : 2024 INSC 161
Sita Soren
v.
Union of India
(Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019)
04 March 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, A.S. Bopanna,
M. M. Sundresh, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,
J.B. Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Instant Reference pertains to reconsideration of the correctness
of the view of the majority judgment in *PV Narasimha Rao's case
granting immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature
who has allegedly engaged in bribery for speaking or casting a vote.
Headnotes
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 196 - Powers, privileges
and immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature, as
the case may be, and of members and committees - Member of
Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, if can claim immunity
from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court -
Reconsideration of the correctness of the majority view in*PV
Narasimha Rao's case which grants immunity from prosecution
to a member of the legislature who has allegedly engaged in
bribery for casting a vote or speaking:
Held: Judgment of the majority in *PV Narasimha Rao's case
has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and
parliamentary democracy - There is a grave danger of this Court
allowing an error to be perpetuated if decision not reconsidered
- Thus, said case not concurred with and overruled. [Para 188]
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 196 - Powers, privileges
and immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature,
and of members and committees - Allegation against the
member of Legislative Assembly that she accepted bribe from
an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favour
in the Rajya Sabha elections, however, in an open ballot, she
did not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver but
her own party candidate - Chargesheet against the member -
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
463
Sita Soren v. Union of India
Petition for quashing of criminal charges, claiming protection
of Art.194(2), relying on *PV Narasimha Rao's case that member
would enjoy immunity from prosecution for accepting bribe
for speaking or giving their vote in Parliament - Rejected by
the High Court - Matter before the Supreme Court where the
two-judge bench referred the matter to three-judge bench, who
further referred to five-judges bench - Bench of five-judges
doubted the correctness of *PV Narasimha Rao wherein the
majority judgment held that the legislator is conferred with
immunity when they accept bribe for speaking or giving their
vote in Parliament, whereas minority held that giving bribe
to influence legislator to vote or speak in Parliament, not
protected by Arts. 105(2) and 194(2), and referred the matter
to bench of seven judges:
Held: Interpretation placed on the issue in question in the judgment
of the majority in *PV Narasimha Rao's case results in a paradoxical
outcome - Such an interpretation is contrary to the text and purpose
of Arts. 105 and 194 - Reconsidering *PV Narasimha Rao's case
does not violate the principle of stare decisis - Members of the
House or indeed the House itself cannot claim privileges which are
not essentially related to their functioning - Constitution envisions
probity in public life - Corruption and bribery of members of the
legislature erode the foundation of the Parliamentary democracy
- Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege - Delivery of
result irrelevant to the offence of bribery - Voting for elections to
the Rajya Sabha falls within the ambit of Art. 194(2) - Thus, said
case not concurred with and overruled. [Paras D, G, I, 188]
Judicial Precedent - Overruling of the long-settled law in *PV
Narasimha Rao's case, if warranted:
Held : Period of time over which the case has held the field is not
of primary consequence - It is not appropriate for this Court to
confine itself to a rigid understanding of the doctrine of stare decisis
- Ability of this Court to reconsider its decisions is necessary for
the organic development of law and the advancement of justice - If
this Court is denuded of its power to reconsider its decisions, the
development of constitutional jurisprudence would virtually come to
a standstill - Thus, reconsidering *PV Narasimha Rao's case does
not violate the principle of stare decisis - *PV Narasimha Rao's
case has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public
life and the functioning of parliamentary democracy - It contains
several apparent errors, its interpretation of the text of Art. 105;
its conceptualization of the scope and purpose of parliamentary
464
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
privilege and its approach to international jurisprudence all of
which resulted in a paradoxical outcome - There is an imminent
threat of allowing an error to be perpetuated if the decision in *PV
Narasimha Rao's case is not reconsidered - Mistaken interpretation
of the Constitution, must not be perpetuted merely because of
rigid allegiance to a previous opinion of five judges of this Court.
[Paras 31, 33, 40, 44, 188.1]
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 194 - Parliamentary
privileges, if collective right of the house - Two constituent
elements of privileges:
Held: First is the sum of rights enjoyed by the House of Parliament
collectively and the second is the rights enjoyed by members
of the House individually - Rights and immunities such as the
power to regulate its own procedure, the power to punish for
contempt of the House or to expel a member, belong to the first
element of privileges held by the House as a collective body for
its proper functioning, protection of members, and vindication of
its own authority and dignity - Second element of rights exercised
individually by members of the House includes freedom of speech
and freedom from arrest, among others - Privilege exercised by
members individually is in turn qualified by its necessity, in that
the privilege must be such that "without which they could not
discharge their functions" - These privileges enjoyed by members
of the House individually are a means to ensure and facilitate
the effective discharge of the collective functions of the House
- Privileges enjoyed by members of the House which exceed
those possessed by other bodies or individuals, are not absolute
or unqualified - Thus, the privileges and immunities enshrined in
Arts. 105 and 194 belong to the House collectively - Exercise of
the privileges individually by members must be tested on the anvil
of whether it is tethered to the healthy and essential functioning
of the House. [Paras 76, 77, 84]
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 194 - Parliamentary
privileges - Necessity test to claim and exercise a privilege:
Held: Members of the House or indeed the House itself cannot
claim privileges which are not essentially related to their functioning
- Assertion of a privilege by an individual member of Parliament or
Legislature would be governed by a twofold test, first, the privilege
claimed has to be tethered to the collective functioning of the House,
and second, its necessity must bear a functional relationship to
the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator - Burden of
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
465
Sita Soren v. Union of India
satisfying that a privilege exists and that it is necessary for the
House to collectively discharge its function lies with the person or
body claiming the privilege - Houses of Parliament or Legislatures,
and the committees are not islands which act as enclaves shielding
those inside from the application of ordinary laws - Lawmakers
are subject to the same law that the law-making body enacts for
the people it governs and claims to represent. [Paras 87, 90, 91]
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 194 - Parliamentary
privilege - Privileges, if attract immunity to a member of
Parliament or of the Legislatures who engages in bribery in
connection with their speech or vote:
Held: Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege - Bribery
is not in respect of anything said or any vote given - Bribery is
not immune under clause (2) of Art.105 and Art.194 because a
member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is unrelated
to their ability to vote or to make a decision on their vote - Same
principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the
House or a Committee - Individual member of the legislature
cannot assert a claim of privilege to seek immunity u/Arts 105 and
194 from prosecution on a charge of bribery in connection with a
vote or speech in the legislature - Such a claim to immunity fails
to fulfil the twofold test that the claim is tethered to the collective
functioning of the House and that it is necessary to the discharge
of the essential duties of a legislator. [Para G, 188.4, 188.7]
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 194 - Parliamentary
privilege - Expression 'in respect of' and 'anything' in Clause
(2) of Art. 105 - Interpretation:
Held: Clause (2) of Art. 105 grants immunity "in respect of anything"
said or any vote given - Extent of this immunity must be tested
on the anvil of the test of intrinsic relation to the functioning of
the House and the necessity test - Phrase "in respect of" is
significant to delineate the ambit of the immunity granted under
Clause (2) of Art. 105 - Words "in respect of" in Clause (2)
apply to the phrase "anything said or any vote given," and in the
latter part to a publication by or with the authority of the House
- Expressions "anything" and "any" must be read in the context
of the accompanying expressions in Arts 105(2) and 194(2) -
Words "anything" or "any" may not be interpreted without reading
the operative word on which it applies i.e. "said" and "vote given"
respectively - Words "anything" and "any" when read with their
respective operative words mean that a member may claim immunity
466
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to say as they feel and vote in a direction that they desire on any
matter before the House - These are absolutely outside the scope
of interference by the courts - Words "in respect of" means 'arising
out of' or 'bearing a clear relation to' and cannot be interpreted to
mean anything which may have even a remote connection with
the speech or vote given. [Paras 99, 102-103, 188.6]
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 194 - Power, privileges
and immunity in Parliament - Purpose and object:
Held: Constitution envisions probity in public life - Purpose and
object for which the Constitution stipulates powers, privileges
and immunity in Parliament must be borne in mind - Privileges
are essentially related to the House collectively and necessary
for its functioning - Hence, the phrase "in respect of" in Art. 105
must have a meaning consistent with the purpose of privileges
and immunities - Arts. 105 and 194 seek to create a fearless
atmosphere in which debate, deliberations and exchange of ideas
can take place within the Houses of Parliament and the state
legislatures - Purpose is destroyed when a member is induced
to vote or speak in a certain manner not because of their belief/
position on an issue but because of an act of bribery - Corruption
and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of
Indian Parliamentary democracy - It is destructive of the aspirational
and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which
deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive and representative
democracy. [Paras 104, 188.5, 188.8]
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 194 - Parliamentary
privileges - Courts and the House, if exercise parallel
jurisdiction over allegations of bribery:
Held: Issue of bribery is not one of exclusivity of jurisdiction by
the House over its bribe-taking members - Purpose of a House
acting against a contempt by a member for receiving a bribe
serves a purpose distinct from a criminal prosecution - Jurisdiction
which is exercised by a competent court to prosecute a criminal
offence and the authority of the House to take action for a breach
of discipline in relation to the acceptance of a bribe by a member
of the legislature exist in distinct spheres - Scope, purpose and
consequences of the court exercising jurisdiction in relation to a
criminal offence and the authority of the House to discipline its
members are different - Potential of misuse against individual
members of the legislature is neither enhanced nor diminished by
recognizing the jurisdiction of the court to prosecute a member of
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
467
Sita Soren v. Union of India
the legislature who is alleged to have indulged in an act of bribery.
[Paras 188.9, 188.10]
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 194 - Parliamentary
privileges - Offence of bribery, stage at which it crystallizes:
Held: Offence of a public servant being bribed is pegged to receiving
or agreeing to receive the undue advantage and not the actual
performance of the act for which the undue advantage is obtained
- Delivery of results is irrelevant to the offence of bribery - To read
Arts. 105(2) and 194(2) in the manner proposed in the majority
judgment in PV Narasimha Rao's case results in a paradoxical
outcome - Such an interpretation results in a situation where a
legislator is rewarded with immunity when they accept a bribe and
follow through by voting in the agreed direction - On the other hand,
a legislator who agrees to accept a bribe, but may eventually decide
to vote independently will be prosecuted - Such an interpretation
belies not only the text of Arts. 105 and 194 but also the purpose
of conferring parliamentary privilege on members of the legislature
- Offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the agreed
action and crystallizes on the exchange of illegal gratification - It
does not matter whether the vote is cast in the agreed direction
or if the vote is cast at all - Offence of bribery is complete at the
point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe - Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 7. [Paras 117, 126, 188.11]
Constitution of India - Arts. 105 and 194 - Parliamentary
privileges - Votes casted by elected members of the state
legislative assembly in an election to the Rajya Sabha, if
protected by Art. 194(2):
Held: Voting for elections to the Rajya Sabha falls within the
ambit of Art.194(2) - Text of Art. 194 consciously uses the term
'Legislature' instead of 'House' to include parliamentary processes
which do not necessarily take place on the floor of the House or
involve 'lawmaking' in its pedantic sense - Rajya Sabha or the
Council of States performs an integral function in the working of the
democracy and the role played by Rajya Sabha constitutes a part
of the basic structure of the Constitution - Role played by elected
members of the state legislative assemblies in electing members of
Rajya Sabha is significant and requires utmost protection to ensure
that vote is exercised freely and without fear of legal persecution
- Any other interpretation belies the text of Art.194(2) and the
purpose of parliamentary privilege - Protection Arts. 105 and 194
colloquially called "parliamentary privilege" and not "legislative
468
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
privilege" - It cannot be restricted to only law-making on the floor
of the House but extends to other powers and responsibilities of
elected members, taking place in the Legislature or Parliament,
even when the House is not sitting. [Paras 180, 187]
Constitution of India - Art. 194 - Use of the term "Legislature"
instead of the "House of Legislature" at appropriate places
- Effect:
Held: It is evident from the drafting of the provision that the two
terms have not been used interchangeably - First limb of Art.
194(2) pertains to "anything said or any vote given by him in the
Legislature or any committee thereof" - However, in the second
limb, the phrase used is "in respect of the publication by or under
the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper,
votes, or proceedings" - There is a clear departure from the term
'Legislature' used in the first limb, to use the term "House of such a
Legislature" in the second limb of the provision - Provision creates
a distinction between the two - Terms "House of Legislature" and
"Legislature" have different connotations - "House of Legislature"
refers to the juridical body, which is summoned by the Governor
pursuant to Art. 174 - Term "Legislature", on the other hand, refers to
the wider concept under Art. 168, comprising the Governor and the
Houses of the Legislature - Use of the phrase "in the Legislature"
instead of "House of Legislature" is significant. [Paras 174, 175.]
Constitution of India - Arts. 105, 194 - Parliamentary privilege
under:
Held: Is integral to deliberative democracy in facilitating the
functioning of a parliamentary form of governance - It ensures
that legislators in whom citizens repose their faith can express
their views and opinions on the floor of the House without 'fear or
favour' - Legislator belonging to a political party with a minuscule
vote share can fearlessly vote on any motion; a legislator from
a remote region of the country can raise issues that impact her
constituency without the fear of being harassed by legal prosecution;
and a legislator can demand accountability without the apprehension
of being accused of defamation. [Para 1]
Constitution of India - Art. 105, clause (1), (2), (3), (4) - Powers,
privileges, etc. of the Houses of Parliament and of the members
and committees thereof - Explanation:
Held: Clause (1) declares that there shall be freedom of speech
in Parliament, subject to the Constitution and to the rules and
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
469
Sita Soren v. Union of India
standing orders regulating the procedure in Parliament - First
limb of Clause (2) prescribes that a member of Parliament shall
not be liable before any court in respect of "anything said or any
vote given" by them in Parliament or any committee thereof and
second limb prescribes that no person shall be liable before any
court in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either
House of Parliament of any report, paper, vote or proceedings
- Clauses (1) and (2) explicitly guarantee freedom of speech in
Parliament - Clause (1) is a positive postulate which guarantees
freedom of speech whereas Clause (2) is an extension of the
same freedom postulated negatively - Clause (3) states that in
respect of privileges not falling under Clauses (1) and (2) of Art.
105, the powers, privileges and immunities, shall be such as may
from time to time be defined by Parliament by law - Clause (3)
allows Parliament to enact a law on its privileges from time to
time - Clause (4) extends the freedoms in the above clauses to
all persons who by virtue of the Constitution have a right to speak
in Parliament - Thus, four clauses in Arts. 105 and 194 form a
composite whole which lend colour to each other and together form
the corpus of the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses
of Parliament or Legislature, and of members and committees.
[Paras 63-66, 73]
Parliamentary privileges - History of privileges of legislatures
in India:
Held: History can be traced to the history of parliamentary privileges
in the House of Commons in the UK as well as the struggle of
the Indian Legislatures to claim these privileges under colonial
rule - Unlike the House of Commons in the UK, India does not
have 'ancient and undoubted' privileges which were vested after
a struggle between Parliament and the King - Statutory privilege
transitioned to a constitutional privilege after the commencement
of the Constitution. [Paras 49, 188.2]
Parliamentary privileges - Bribery vis-à-vis privileges -
Jurisprudence in foreign jurisdictions - Evolution and position
of the law on privileges vis-a-vis bribe received by a member
of Parliament in other jurisdictions-United Kingdom, United
States of America, Canada, and Australia - Explained and
discussed. [Paras 128-167]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 7 - Offence relating
to public servant being bribed - Offence of bribery, when
complete - Constituent elements of the offence:
470
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: Under s. 7, the mere "obtaining", "accepting" or "attempting"
to obtain an undue advantage with the intention to act or forbear
from acting in a certain way is sufficient to complete the offence
- It is not necessary that the act for which the bribe is given be
actually performed - First explanation to the provision strengthens
such an interpretation when it expressly states that the "obtaining,
accepting, or attempting" to obtain an undue advantage shall itself
constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by
a public servant has not been improper - Thus, the offence of a
public servant being bribed is pegged to receiving or agreeing to
receive the undue advantage and not the actual performance of
the act for which the undue advantage is obtained. [Para 117]
Judicial review - Amenability - Claim to parliamentary
privilege :
Held: Claim to parliamentary privilege conforms to the parameters
of the Constitution, as such amenable to judicial review. [Para 188.3]
Judicial discipline - Procedure of:
Held: Decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is
binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength
- A Bench of lesser strength cannot disagree with or dissent
from the view of the law taken by the bench of larger strength
- However, a bench of the same strength can question the
correctness of a decision rendered by a co-ordinate bench -
In such situations, the case is placed before a bench of larger
strength - In consonance with judicial discipline, the correctness
of the decision in PV Narasimha Rao's case was only doubted
by the co-equal bench of five judges of this Court in a detailed
order and accordingly, the matter was placed before this bench
of seven judges - Thus, no infirmity in the reference to seven
judges bench to reconsider the decision in *PV Narasimha Rao's
case. [Paras 24, 25, 30]
Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of stare decisis - Meaning:
Held: Doctrine of stare decisis provides that the Court should not
lightly dissent from precedent - However, the doctrine is not an
inflexible rule of law, and it cannot result in perpetuating an error
to the detriment of the general welfare of the public - Larger bench
of this Court may reconsider a previous decision in appropriate
cases, bearing in mind the tests formulated in the precedents of
this Court - This Court may review its earlier decisions if it believes
that there is an error, or the effect of the decision would harm the
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
471
Sita Soren v. Union of India
interests of the public or if it is inconsistent with the legal philosophy
of the Constitution - In cases involving the interpretation of the
Constitution, this Court would do so more readily than in other
branches of law because not rectifying a manifest error would be
harmful to public interest and the polity. [Paras 33, 188.1]
Interpretation of Constitution - Interpretation of a provision
of the Constitution:
Held: Court must interpret the text in a manner that does not do
violence to the fabric of the Constitution. [Para 92]
Interpretation of Constitution - Marginal note to the Article
- Importance of:
Held: With reference to Articles of the Constitution, a marginal note
may be used as a tool to provide some clue as to the meaning and
purpose of the Article - However, the real meaning of the Article
is to be derived from the bare text of the Article - When language
of the Article is plain and ambiguous, undue importance cannot be
placed on the marginal note appended to it - Furthermore, marginal
note to a Section in a statute does not control the meaning of the
body of the Section if the language employed is clear. [Para 173]
Interpretation of statutes - Principles of statutory interpretation
- Illustrations appended to s. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act - Relevance:
Held: Illustrations appended to a Section are of value and relevance
in construing the text of a statutory provision and they should not
be readily rejected as repugnant to the Section - Illustration to
the first explanation of s. 7 of the PC Act aids in construing the
provision to mean that the offence of bribery crystallizes on the
exchange of the bribe and does not require the actual performance
of the act - Similarly, in the formulation of a legislator accepting a
bribe, it does not matter whether she votes in the agreed direction
or votes at all - At the point in time when the bribe is accepted,
the offence of bribery is complete - Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. [Para 118]
Case Law Cited
*PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), [1998] 2 SCR
870 : (1998) 4 SCC 626 - overruled.
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 1 :
(2006) 7 SCC 1 - Clarified.
472
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Sita Soren v. Union of India, [2023] 12 SCR 753;
Keshav Mills Co. Ltd v. CIT, [1965] 2 SCR 908 : AIR
1965 SC 1636; Krishena Kumar v. Union of India,
[1990] 3 SCR 352 : (1990) 4 SCC 207; Shanker Raju
v. Union of India, [2011] 2 SCR 1 : (2011) 2 SCC 132;
Shah Faesal and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI), [2020] 3
SCR 1115 : (2020) 4 SCC 1; Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble
Speaker Lok Sabha, [2007] 1 SCR 317 : (2007) 3 SCC
184; Lokayukta, Justice Ripusudan Dayal v. State of
M.P., [2014] 3 SCR 242 : (2014) 4 SCC 473; State of
Kerala v. K. Ajith, [2021] 6 SCR 774; Central Board of
Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra,
[2004] Suppl. 6 SCR 1054 : (2005) 2 SCC 673; Kalpana
Mehta v. Union of India, [2018] 4 SCR 1 : (2018) 7 SCC
1; Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha, [2010] 4
SCR 1105 : (2010) 6 SCC 113; Maganlal Chhaganlal
(P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, [1975] 1
SCR 1 : (1974) 2 SCC 402; Bengal Immunity Company
Limited v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1955] 2 SCR 603;
Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of W.B., [1974] 1 SCR
1 : (1973) 1 SCC 856; Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union
of India, [1961] 2 SCR 828; Union of India v. Raghubir
Singh, [1989] 3 SCR 316 : (1989) 2 SCC 754; Pradeep
Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology,
[2002] 3 SCR 100 : (2002) 5 SCC 111; Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, [2015]
13 SCR 1 : (2016) 5 SCC 1; Ajit Mohan v. Legislative
Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi, [2021]
14 SCR 611 : (2022) 3 SCC 529; Rajeev Suri v DDA,
[2021] 15 SCR 283 : (2022) 11 SCC 1; Alagaapuram
R Mohanraj v. TN Legislative Assembly, [2016] 6 SCR
611 : (2016) 6 SCC 82; Tej Kiran Jain v. N Sanjeeva
Reddy, [1971] 1 SCR 612 : (1970) 2 SCC 272; MSM
Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, [1959] Suppl. 1 SCR
806 : AIR 1959 SC 395; Special Reference No. 1 of
1964, [1965] 1 SCR 413; State of Karnataka v. Union
of India, [1978] 2 SCR 1 : (1977) 4 SCC 608; N Ravi
v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai, 2003 (9)
SCALE 464; State (NCT of Delhi) v Union of India,
[2018] 7 SCR 1 : (2018) 8 SCC 501; Kihoto Hollohan
v. Zachillhu, [1992] 1 SCR 686 : (1992) Supp 2 SCC
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
473
Sita Soren v. Union of India
651; Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. State of Gujarat,
[1976] 3 SCR 1052 : (1976) 3 SCC 46; Neeraj Dutta v.
State (NCT of Delhi), [2023] 2 SCR 997 : (2023) 4 SCC
731; Pashupati Nath Sukul v. Nem Chandra Jain and
Ors., [1984] 1 SCR 939 : (1984) 2 SCC 404; Madhukar
Jetly v. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 111; Kesavananda
Bharati v. State of Kerala, [1973] Suppl. 1 SCR 1 :
(1973) 4 SCC 225; K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v.
Union of India, [2018] 8 SCR 1 : 2018 SCC OnLine
SC 1642 - referred .
Mark Graves v. People of the State of New York, 306
US 466 (1939); Kielly v. Carson, (1841-42) 4 Moo. PC
63; The King v. Sir John Elliot, (1629) 3 St. Tr. 294; Ex
Parte Wason, (1969) 4 QB 573; R v. Greenway, [1998]
PL 357; R v. Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Ex Parte Fayed, [1998] 1 WLR 669; Hamilton v. Al
Fayed, [2001] 1 A.C. 395; Prebble v. Television New
Zealand, (1994) 3 ALL ER 407; Office of Government
Commerce v. Information Commissioner (Attorney
General intervening), [2009] 3 WLR 627; R v. Chaytor,
[2010] 3 WLR 1707; Makudi v. Baron Triesman of
Trottenham, [2014] QB 839; United States v. Thomas F
Johnson, 383 US 169 (1966); United States v. Brewster,
408 US 501 (1972); Gavel v. United States, 408 US
606 (1972); United States v. Helstoski, 442 US 477
(1979); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 439 US 1066 (1979); R
v. Bunting et al, 6 [1885] 17 O.R. 524; Canada (House
of Commons) v. Vaid [2005] 1 SCR 667; Chagnon v.
Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du
Québe, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 687; R v. Edward White, 13
SCR (NSW) 332; R v. Boston, (1923) 33 CLR 386;
Obeid v. Queen, [2017] NSWCCA 221 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
SK Nag, Evolution of Parliamentary Privileges in India
till 1947, Sterling Publication, (1978), 317-18; SK
Nag, Evolution of Parliamentary Privileges in India
till 1947, Sterling Publication, (1978), 102-103; SK
Nag, Evolution of Parliamentary Privileges in India till
1947, Sterling Publication, (1978), 139-141, 158; SK
Nag, Evolution of Parliamentary Privileges in India
474
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
till 1947, Sterling Publication, (1978), 322; Report of
the Reforms Enquiry Committee (1924), 75; SK Nag,
Evolution of Parliamentary Privileges in India till 1947,
Sterling Publication, (1978), 213-214; Granville Austin,
The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, OUP
(1972), ix; Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution:
Cornerstone of a Nation, OUP (1972), xiii; CAD Vol VIII
19 May, 1949 Draft Article 85; Subhash C. Kashyap,
Parliamentary Procedure-Law, Privileges, Practice and
Precedents, 3rd ed., Universal Law Publishing Co, 502;
MN Kaul and SL Shakdher, Practice and Procedure of
Parliament, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Metropolitan Book
Co. Pvt. Ltd., 7th ed., 229; Justice GP Singh, Principles
of Statutory Interpretation, 15th Ed. (2021), 136; Justice
GP Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 15th
Ed. (2021), 188-189 - referred to.
Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges,
Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, LexisNexis,
25th ed. (2019) 239; Erskine May's Treatise on the
Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament,
LexisNexis, 25th ed. (2019) 242 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;
Government of India Act, 1833; Charter Act, 1853; Indian Council
Act, 1861; Government of India Act, 1909; Representation of the
People Act, 1951; Government of India Act, 1919; Government of
India Act, 1935; Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
List of Keywords
Bribery for speaking or casting a vote; Bribery vis-à-vis privileges;
Parliamentary privilege; Legislative privilege; Ancient privileges;
Statutory privilege; Constitutional privilege; History of privileges of
legislatures; Immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature;
Reconsideration of PV Narasimha Rao case; Probity in public life;
Parliamentary democracy; Principle of stare decisis; Elections
to Rajya Sabha; Overruled; Judicial Precedent; Constitutional
jurisprudence; Freedom of speech; House of Parliament; Necessity
test; Collective functioning of the House; Immunity "in respect of
anything" said or any vote given; Parallel jurisdiction; House of
Legislature; Legislature; Colonial rule; House of Commons in the
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
475
Sita Soren v. Union of India
UK; Foreign jurisdictions; Obtaining, accepting or attempting to
obtain an undue advantage; Judicial review; Judicial discipline;
Illustrations appended to a Section; Marginal note to a Section;
Reforms of Committee, 1924.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.451
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2014 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WPCRL No.128 of 2013
Appearances for Parties
Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv.(Amicus Curiae), Ms. Harshika
Verma, Dipanshu Krishnan, Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Manan Daga,
Ms. Samradhi Srivastava, Gaurav Agrawal, Advs.
Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Kaushik Laik, Vivek Singh, Ashay
Kaushik, M.V. Mukunda, Shashank Tiwari, Rahul Arya, Pratap
Shankar, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. Tanvi Anand Advs. for the Appellant.
R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor
General, K M Nataraj, A.S.G., K Parmeshwar, Kanu Agrawal, Ms.
Chinmayee Chandra, Udai Khanna, Akshay Amritanshu, Ankur
Talwar, Anmol Chandan, Anandh Venkataramani, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi
Venkataramani, Vinayak Mehrotra, Ms. Mansi Sood, Chitvan Singhal,
Ms. Sonali Jain, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Kartikey
Aggarwal, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
Gopal Sankaranarayan, Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Advs., Ashwini Kumar
Upadhyay, Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Vishal Sinha, Ms. Jhanvi Dubey,
Ms. Tanya Shrivastava, Ms. Aditi Gupta, Ms. Trisha Chandran, Vaibhav
Tiwari, Rishabh Shukla, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Ms. Kavya Jhawar, Ms.
Jessy Kurian, K.S. Bhati, Ms. SR. Leona, Ms. Shilpa Bagade, Ms.
Joyshree Barman, Shubham Singhal, Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms.
Rooh-e-hina Dua, Arav Pandit, Harshit Khanduja, Ms. Dhanakshi
Gandhi, Sahib Kochhar, Ms. Shreya Arora, Randeep Sachdeva,
Dr. Vivek Sharma, K.V. Dhananjay, A Velan, Pawan Shyam, Ms.
Navpreet Kaur, Sushant VA, Ojaswi, Dheeraj SJ, Mritunjay Pathak,
Sachin S, Anand Nandan, Amit Pawan, Aakash, Zubair, Vikash, Dr.
Dhruv Mishra, Mohd Faiz, Ms. Shivangi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
Advs. for the Intervenor/Impleadors.
476
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Table of Contents*
A.
Reference
4
B.
Overview of the judgment in PV Narasimha Rao
8
C.
Submissions
14
D.
Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao does not
violate the principle of stare decisis
22
E.
History of parliamentary privilege in India
34
F.
Purport of parliamentary privilege in India
44
I.
Functional analysis
44
II.
Parliamentary privilege as a collective
right of the House
54
III.
Necessity test to claim and exercise a privilege
60
G.
Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege
65
I.
Bribery is not in respect of anything
said or any vote given
65
II.
The Constitution envisions probity in public life
72
III.
Courts and the House exercise parallel
jurisdiction over allegations of bribery
76
IV.
Delivery of results is irrelevant to the
offence of bribery
79
H.
International position on bribery vis-à-vis privileges
87
I.
United Kingdom
87
II.
United States of America
99
III.
Canada
108
IV.
Australia
114
I.
Elections to the Rajya Sabha are within the
remit of Article 194(2)
118
J.
Conclusion
131
* Ed. Note: Pagination is as per the original Judgment.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
477
Sita Soren v. Union of India
1.
Parliamentary privilege, codified in Articles 105 and 194 of the
Constitution, is integral to deliberative democracy in facilitating the
functioning of a parliamentary form of governance. It ensures that
legislators in whom citizens repose their faith can express their views
and opinions on the floor of the House without 'fear or favour'. With
the protection of parliamentary privilege, a legislator belonging to a
political party with a minuscule vote share can fearlessly vote on any
motion; a legislator from a remote region of the country can raise
issues that impact her constituency without the fear of being harassed
by legal prosecution; and a legislator can demand accountability
without the apprehension of being accused of defamation.
2.
Would a legislator who receives a bribe to cast a vote in a certain
direction or speak about certain issues be protected by parliamentary
privilege? It is this question of constitutional interpretation that this
Court is called upon to decide.
A.
Reference
3.
The Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment dated 17 February 2014
of the High Court of Jharkhand.1 An election was held on 30 March
2012 to elect two members of the Rajya Sabha representing the
State of Jharkhand. The appellant, belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti
Morcha,2 was a member of the Legislative Assembly of Jharkhand.
The allegation against the appellant is that she accepted a bribe
from an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favour.
However, as borne out from the open balloting for the Rajya Sabha
seat, she did not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver
and instead cast her vote in favour of a candidate belonging to her
own party. The round of election in question was annulled and a
fresh election was held where the appellant voted in favour of the
candidate from her own party again.
4.
The appellant moved the High Court to quash the chargesheet and
the criminal proceedings instituted against her. The appellant claimed
protection under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, relying on the
judgment of the Constitution bench of this Court in PV Narasimha
1
Writ Petition (Criminal) No 128 of 2013
2
"JMM"
478
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)3. The High Court declined to quash the
criminal proceedings on the ground that the appellant had not cast
her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver and thus, is not entitled
to the protection under Article 194(2). The High Court's reasoning
primarily turned on this Court's decision in PV Narasimha Rao
(supra). The controversy in PV Narasimha Rao (supra) and the
present case turns on the interpretation of the provisions of Article
105(2) of the Constitution (which deals with the powers, privileges,
and immunities of the members of Parliament and Parliamentary
committees) and the equivalent provision in Article 194(2) of the
Constitution which confers a similar immunity to the members of
the State Legislatures.
5.
On 23 September 2014, a bench of two judges of this Court,
before which the appeal was placed, was of the view that since the
issue arising for consideration is "substantial and of general public
importance", it must be placed before a larger bench of three judges
of this court. On 7 March 2019, a bench of three judges which heard
the appeal observed that the precise question was dealt with in a
judgment of a five-judge bench in PV Narasimha Rao (supra). The
bench was of the view that "having regard to the wide ramification
of the question that has arisen, the doubts raised and the issue
being a matter of public importance", the matter must be referred
to a larger bench.
6.
Finally, by an order dated 20 September 2023, a five-judge bench of
this Court recorded prima facie reasons doubting the correctness of
the decision in PV Narasimha Rao (supra) and referred the matter
to a larger bench of seven judges. The operative part of the order
reported as Sita Soren v. Union of India4, is extracted below:
"24. We are inclined to agree ...that the view which has been
expressed in the decision of the majority in PV Narasimha
Rao requires to be reconsidered by a larger Bench. Our
reasons prima facie for doing so are formulated below:
Firstly, the interpretation of Article 105(2) and the
corresponding provisions of Article 194(2) of the Constitution
3
[1998] 2 SCR 870 : (1998) 4 SCC 626
4
[2023] 12 SCR 753 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1217
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
479
Sita Soren v. Union of India
must be guided by the text, context and the object and
purpose underlying the provision. The fundamental purpose
and object underlying Article 105(2) of the Constitution
is that Members of Parliament, or as the case may be
of the State Legislatures must be free to express their
views on the floor of the House or to cast their votes
either in the House or as members of the Committees
of the House without fear of consequences. While Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution recognises the individual right
to the freedom of speech and expression, Article 105(2)
institutionalises that right by recognising the importance
of the Members of the Legislature having the freedom to
express themselves and to cast their ballots without fear
of reprisal or consequences.