A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Thursday said the place - whether inside or outside the House - where an MP or MLA accepts a bribe really does not matter.
Justice PS Narasimha, one of the Associate Judges on the Bench, said it is very difficult to escape the clutches of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, submitted that privilege or immunity of office under Articles 105(2) or 194(2) of the Constitution does not extend to MPs and MLAs when the action of receiving a bribe to cast a vote or make a speech is completed outside the House. Mr. Mehta narrowed down the issue simply to “whether bribery can be protected by immunity”.
But the Bench indicated that receiving a bribe was a crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The place of occurrence did not matter.
The Bench was reviewing the law laid down by a majority in the JMM Bribery case judgment in 1998.
The majority judgment had held that MPs and MLAs who take bribes to cast their votes or make speeches in a particular manner were immune from any legal proceedings.
The court reserved the case for judgment.
The reference to a seven-judge Bench came in an appeal filed by JMM leader Sita Soren, who was accused of taking a bribe to vote for a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha elections of 2012. Though she later denied culpability on the ground that she voted for the official nominee of her own party, the CBI filed a chargesheet in the case. The Jharkhand High Court had refused to quash the chargesheet, following which she had moved the apex court.
Ms. Soren is the daughter-in-law of JMM chief and former union minister Shibu Soren, who was involved in the alleged JMM bribery case. Eom
