SC reverses Narasimha Rao verdict: Revisiting the 1998 JMM cash-for-votes ruling

SC reverses Narasimha Rao verdict: Revisiting the 1998 JMM cash-for-votes ruling

Last month, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that legislators are not immune from criminal prosecution for bribery charges related to their speeches and votes in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. The decision overturned the court’s own 1998 judgement in PV Narasimha Rao vs State (CBI/SPE), where a five-judge bench, in a 3-2 verdict, had previously held that legislators were protected from prosecution for accepting such bribes. More significantly, the verdict finds its roots in a judgment by the Jharkhand High Court from a decade ago.

Political Drama: Rao’s Narrow Victory

The political manoeuvring and drama surrounding the no-trust  motion against then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao in 1993 showcased the intricate dynamics of Indian politics. Despite Rao’s Congress party holding 251 members of parliament (MPs), just 13 short of a majority in the 528-member Lok Sabha, the no-confidence motion introduced by Ajoy Mukhopadhyay of the CPI(M) seemed poised to challenge his leadership. However, when the vote finally took place, the motion was defeated with 265 votes in favour and 251 against, allowing Rao and the Congress to cling onto power. This episode highlighted the resilience and strategic planning of political parties in the face of adversity, shaping the course of Indian politics at the time.

Also Read | Centre lauds ex-PM Narasimha Rao, Manmohan Singh in SC for economic liberalisation

Bribery Scandal: Soren’s Crucial Support

In 1993, Shibu Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and former chief minister of Jharkhand, along with four fellow party MPs, reportedly received bribes in exchange for voting against a no-confidence motion aimed at undermining the minority Rao administration’s stability. Soren’s backing proved crucial as it helped the government withstand the no-confidence challenge, securing its continuity in power.

Amid the legal entanglement involving Shibu Soren and four other JMM Lok Sabha MPs, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case against them. However, the apex court intervened, ultimately nullifying the case. This watershed moment unfolded in 1998 when a five-judge bench of the SC, delving into the intricacies of the JMM bribery case, conferred upon MPs and members of legislative assemblies (MLAs) immunity from prosecution related to bribes exchanged for speeches or votes within the legislative precincts. The landmark ruling established that parliamentarians enjoy protection against criminal prosecution for any discourse delivered or ballot cast within the House, as stipulated under Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) of the Constitution.

Sita Soren’s Immunity Plea Amid Bribery Allegations

Moving ahead to 2012, the daughter-in-law of the former Jharkhand CM, serving as a JMM MLA from Jama, faced similar allegations. The  instance came to light during the court proceedings concerning a plea filed by politician Sita Soren. She sought the dismissal of the criminal prosecution initiated against her, arguing for immunity under Article 194(2) of the Indian Constitution.

On February 17, 2014, the high court handed down a directive to prosecute Sita Soren. She faced allegations of accepting a bribe but failing to cast her vote in the House according to the agreement made with the bribe-giver.

Allegations surfaced that Sita Soren had reportedly accepted a bribe to endorse an Independent candidate during the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections, only to later cast her vote in favor of her own party’s nominee. Later, the CBI initiated action against her under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In response, Sita Soren petitioned the high court to dismiss the chargesheet and halt the criminal proceedings, invoking the 1998 precedent to assert her entitlement to shield under Article 194(2) of the Constitution.

Court Rejects Immunity Plea in Bribery Case

However, the court rebuffed her plea, contending that since Soren had not voted in alignment with the alleged bribe-giver, she was not eligible for protection under Article 194(2).

Seeking legal immunity, she petitioned the Jharkhand High Court, which in 2014 declined to dismiss the criminal case filed against her.  she later appealed to the apex court for further recourse.

On March 7, 2019, a three-member panel of the SC, led by the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, deferred the case to a larger bench, citing the profound implications of the raised question. The court acknowledged the uncertainties surrounding the matter and the significant public importance it held, necessitating deliberation by a larger bench.

1991 Election Fallout: Shaping a Minority Govt

The Rao case originated from the aftermath of the 1991 general election, which saw the Congress emerge as the largest single party, leading to the formation of a minority government under Rao’s leadership.

During a no-confidence motion against the government, certain MPs from the JMM and the Janata Dal (Ajit Singh) reportedly voted against the motion, while Ajit Singh himself abstained from voting.

Following a complaint lodged with the CBI alleging a criminal conspiracy involving the acceptance of bribes by certain MPs to vote against the no-confidence motion, allegations surfaced implicating Rao and several other MPs in the conspiracy, accusing them of passing on substantial sums of money to the alleged bribe-takers.

Later, a prosecution was initiated against the accused bribe-givers and bribe-takers, with a special judge in Delhi taking cognisance of the case. The accused MPs then approached the Delhi High Court seeking to have the charges quashed, but their pleas were dismissed.

MPs Not Immune from Criminal Prosecution

The accused MPs then appealed to the apex court, which delivered its verdict in 1998 by a majority of 3:2. The majority opinion, articulated by Chief Justice SP Bharucha and Justices S Rajendra Babu and GN Ray, asserted that alleged bribe-takers who had voted against the no-confidence motion were immune from prosecution under Article 105(2) of the Constitution.

However, the minority opinion, voiced by Justices SC Agarwal and AS Anand, argued that MPs did not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution. This minority view was upheld by a unanimous verdict of a seven-judge bench last month.