Daily Current Affairs : 22-September-2023
The recent decision of the Supreme Court to refer the question of whether legislators enjoy legal immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution when facing criminal charges related to bribery has sparked significant debate. These provisions offer protection to members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) from legal action for statements and actions made during their duties. This essay will explore these constitutional immunities and delve into a crucial 1998 ruling that shaped the interpretation of these provisions.
Understanding the Immunity Provisions
Article 105 of the Constitution
Article 105 of the Indian Constitution plays a pivotal role in safeguarding legislators from legal actions stemming from their parliamentary duties. This provision shields MPs from facing any legal consequences for statements made or actions taken while performing their responsibilities. For instance, if an MP utters defamatory remarks within the parliamentary precincts, they cannot be slapped with a defamation suit for their words. Additionally, this immunity extends beyond elected members to include individuals such as the Attorney General of India or a Minister who, while not MPs, might address the House. In cases where an MP’s speech or action goes beyond the bounds of acceptable free speech, it is the Speaker of the House’s responsibility to address the matter rather than resorting to legal proceedings.
Article 194(2) Extension
Article 194(2) of the Constitution parallels Article 105 by extending similar immunity to MLAs and the state legislatures. This means that MLAs, like their parliamentary counterparts, are protected from legal action arising from their duties.
The 1998 Ruling
In 1998, a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court profoundly influenced the interpretation of these constitutional immunities. The case involved a question: does the legal immunity enjoyed by parliamentarians under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) extend to prosecution for demanding or accepting a bribe? Out of the five judges on the bench, two judges argued that the protection provided under these articles should not cover cases involving bribery related to parliamentary activities such as speeches or votes.
However, the prevailing viewpoint within the bench emphasized that the Constitution should not be narrowly interpreted to exclude cases of bribery from the ambit of immunity. The majority believed that limiting the scope of these constitutional provisions in such a manner might impede the essential functions of parliamentary participation and debate. As a result, the Supreme Court, in 1998, quashed the case against the MPs, citing the immunity granted under Article 105(2).
Important Points:
Understanding the Immunity Provisions
- Article 105 of the Indian Constitution provides legal immunity to MPs for statements and actions made during their parliamentary duties.
- This immunity prevents MPs from facing legal consequences for their statements, even if they are defamatory.
- The immunity extends to non-members, like the Attorney General of India or Ministers who address the House.
- Cases involving breaches of acceptable free speech by MPs are addressed by the Speaker of the House, not the courts.
- Article 194(2) of the Constitution extends similar immunity to MLAs and state legislatures.
The 1998 Ruling
- In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled on whether legislators’ immunity covers prosecution for bribery related to parliamentary activities.
- Two judges argued that bribery cases should not be covered by this immunity.
- The majority view emphasized a broader interpretation of the Constitution, suggesting that limiting immunity might hinder parliamentary participation and debate.
- The 1998 ruling favored a broader interpretation of constitutional immunities, protecting MPs from prosecution for bribery related to their duties.
Why In News
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to refer the question of whether legislators are shielded from criminal prosecution for bribery under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution to a seven-judge bench underscores the pivotal importance of clarifying the boundaries of legal immunity in the pursuit of justice. This landmark case has the potential to reshape the landscape of accountability in the political arena and set a precedent for future legislative accountability measures.
MCQs about Legislative Immunity and Bribery Prosecution
-
What is the primary purpose of Article 105 of the Indian Constitution?
A) To provide legal immunity to legislators from all criminal actions.
B) To grant immunity to legislators for statements and actions made during their parliamentary duties.
C) To prevent any legal action against legislators, regardless of their actions.
D) To grant immunity only to MPs, not other individuals like Ministers.
-
In the 1998 ruling, what was the majority view regarding the interpretation of legislative immunity?
A) Immunity should not apply in cases involving bribery related to parliamentary activities.
B) Immunity should protect legislators from prosecution for all criminal offenses.
C) Immunity should be interpreted narrowly to exclude bribery cases.
D) Immunity should be broadly interpreted to preserve parliamentary participation and debate.
-
Which constitutional article extends immunity to Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) and state legislatures?
A) Article 105
B) Article 194(2)
C) Article 105(2)
D) Article 194
-
What is the central question referred to a seven-judge bench in the recent Supreme Court decision?
A) Whether legislators should have complete immunity from all criminal actions.
B) Whether immunity covers only defamation suits against legislators.
C) Whether immunity extends to prosecution for demanding or accepting a bribe.
D) Whether immunity should be limited to elected members.
Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions
