8 months ago
17
- We disagree with the judgment in the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao case. The judgment in that case which granted immunity to legislators for taking bribes to cast votes has wide ramifications.
- Such a claim for immunity fails to fulfill the test of whether such immunity is necessary to discharge legislative functions.
- Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105 or 194 because a legislator indulging in bribery commits a criminal act that is not essential for the function of casting a vote or giving a speech.
- The offence of bribery does not depend on whether the vote or speech is given later. The offence is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts a bribe.
- Bribery isn't protected by parliamentary privileges.
- The interpretation of the 1998 verdict is contrary to the Constitution's Articles 105 and 194.
- The purpose and object of legislative privileges must be borne in mind. Privileges are for the house collectively. Articles 105/194 seek to create a fearless environment for the members.
- Corruption and bribery by legislators destroy the functioning of Indian Parliamentary democracy.
- The PV Narasimha Rao judgment results in a paradoxical situation where a legislator who accepts a bribe and votes accordingly is protected, whereas a legislator who, despite taking a bribe, votes independently is prosecuted.
- MLA taking a bribe to vote in Rajya Sabha elections is also liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Article From:
www.ndtv.com
English (US) ·