Sita Soren v. Union of India (The End of Legislative Immunity for Bribery)

The case of Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) is a landmark constitutional judgment that corrects a 26-year-old precedent, striking a major blow for accountability and against corruption. A unanimous 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court overruled its own 1998 judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, firmly declaring that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) do not have immunity from criminal prosecution for taking bribes.

Table of Contents

Facts of the Case

The Allegation: The case originates from the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. Sita Soren, an MLA from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), was accused of accepting a bribe to vote for a specific candidate. However, she allegedly voted for a different candidate.
The Legal Defense: Criminal proceedings were initiated against her. In her defense, Sita Soren sought protection under Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
- Article 194(2) grants MLAs immunity from any proceedings in any court “in respect of anything said or any vote given by him” in the legislature.
- Article 105(2) provides the identical privilege to MPs in Parliament.

3. The Precedent: Her defense was based on the 1998 Supreme Court judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI). In that case, a 3:2 majority had held that legislators were immune from prosecution for bribery if their alleged bribe-taking was connected to a speech or vote in the House.

4. The “Paradox”: The Narasimha Rao judgment had created a paradox: it protected legislators who took a bribe and voted as promised, but it did not protect those who took a bribe but failed to vote as promised.

5. The Referral: Due to this “paradoxical” and widely criticized precedent, a 3-judge bench in Sita Soren’s case (in 2019) referred the matter to a larger 5-judge bench to reconsider the Narasimha Rao judgment. This was later expanded to a 7-judge Constitution Bench to give a definitive ruling.

Issues Before the Court

The 7-judge bench was faced with two primary questions:

Does the legislative privilege under Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) grant MPs and MLAs immunity from criminal prosecution for taking a bribe in connection with a vote or speech in the legislature?

Is the majority judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998) a correct interpretation of the law, or should it be overruled?

Arguments by Both Parties

Arguments of the Petitioner (Sita Soren)

Stare Decisis: The P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment was a 25-year-old precedent and should not be disturbed lightly.

Absolute Privilege: The privilege under Article 105(2)/194(2) is absolute and is crucial for legislators to perform their duties (speak and vote) without fear of external pressure or prosecution.

Nexus with Duty: The alleged bribe was directly connected to the act of voting, which is a core legislative function protected by the Constitution. Prosecuting for it would have a “chilling effect” on legislative freedom.

Arguments of the Respondent (Union of India)

Bribery is not a Legislative Act: The privilege is meant to protect legitimate legislative functions (speech, debate, voting), not criminal acts. Bribery is a crime, not a protected function.

Corruption Undermines Democracy: Granting immunity for bribery undermines public integrity, probity, and the rule of law.

Crime is Separate: The offense of bribery is complete the moment the bribe is accepted (under the Prevention of Corruption Act), regardless of whether the legislator actually votes as promised. The act of voting is separate from the prior criminal act of taking a bribe.

Flawed Precedent: The Narasimha Rao judgment was flawed, and its “paradoxical” outcome (protecting the “successful” bribe-taker) was legally unsound.

The Judgment

On March 4, 2024, the 7-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered a unanimous (7-0) judgment.

P.V. Narasimha Rao is Overruled: The Court held that the 1998 majority judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State was incorrect and is officially overruled.

No Immunity for Bribery: The Court definitively ruled that Articles 105(2) and 194(2) do not grant MPs or MLAs any immunity from prosecution for taking bribes in connection with their speech or vote in the legislature.

Reasoning of the Court:

**Bribery is not protected: The Court held that bribery is not essential to the legislative function. The privilege is meant to protect the freedom of speech and voting, not the crime of trading that freedom for money.

Offense is Complete: The Court clarified that the crime of bribery is complete upon the “acceptance” of the bribe, as defined by anti-corruption laws. It doesn’t matter if the legislator votes as promised or not.
Upholding Public Integrity: The Court emphasized that bribery strikes at the root of parliamentary democracy and that constitutional provisions cannot be interpreted to “shield” corrupt legislators. The judgment brings legislators under the same anti-corruption laws as ordinary citizens.