[ad_1]
The Supreme Court docket right now pronounced its verdict on whether or not Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) are immune from prosecution for accepting bribes in alternate for making a speech or casting a vote within the legislature.
Listed here are the Supreme Court docket’s high quotes:
We disagree with the judgment within the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao case. The judgment in that case which granted immunity to legislators for taking bribes to forged votes has extensive ramifications.
Such a declare for immunity fails to satisfy the take a look at of whether or not such immunity is critical to discharge legislative features.
Bribery shouldn’t be rendered immune beneath Article 105 or 194 as a result of a legislator indulging in bribery commits a prison act that isn’t important for the operate of casting a vote or giving a speech.
The offence of bribery doesn’t rely on whether or not the vote or speech is given later. The offence is full on the cut-off date when the legislator accepts a bribe.
Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privileges.
The interpretation of the 1998 verdict is opposite to the Structure’s Articles 105 and 194.
The aim and object of legislative privileges have to be borne in thoughts. Privileges are for the home collectively. Articles 105/194 search to create a fearless surroundings for the members.
Corruption and bribery by legislators destroy the functioning of Indian Parliamentary democracy.
The PV Narasimha Rao judgment ends in a paradoxical state of affairs the place a legislator who accepts a bribe and votes accordingly is protected, whereas a legislator who, regardless of taking a bribe, votes independently is prosecuted.
MLA taking a bribe to vote in Rajya Sabha elections can be liable beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act.
[ad_2]
