Nithyakalyani Narayanan. V
The Supreme Court clarified its 2006 Kuldip Nayar ruling (AIR 2006 SC 3127) on Monday, March 4, by declaring that Rajya Sabha elections fall under the purview of Article 194(2) of the Constitution. This is a significant move.
It held that parliamentary privileges under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) could not be limited to only legislative activities on the floor of the house but also extended to other powers and responsibilities of elected members taking place in the legislative body even when the house is not in session, noting that the role of the parliament’s upper house was a part of the fundamental structure of the Constitution.
This was part of a larger decision that reversed the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao ruling (AIR 1998 SC 2120), regarding parliamentary immunity in relation to allegations of bribery against lawmakers. In its most recent ruling, members of parliament and legislative assemblies cannot claim immunity from prosecution on charges of bribery relating to votes or statements in the legislature, according to a seven-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. The verdict was given on Monday morning. Leader of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Sita Soren, who was charged with receiving a bribe in exchange for a 2012 Rajya Sabha vote, cast doubt on the 1998 case in an appeal.
The Supreme Court’s findings are part of an order that overturns the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao decision. In 1998, a majority of five judges ruled that state legislatures and members of parliament were not subject to prosecution in cases of bribery pertaining to their votes or speeches in the house while exercising the parliamentary privileges granted by Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution, as long as they fulfilled their side of the agreement in exchange for the bribe. The recent constitution bench judgement was made possible since this verdict was questioned in JMM leader Sita Soren’s appeal.
Attorney-General R Venkataramani had maintained throughout the hearing that Soren’s appeal would not be covered by the PV Narasimha Rao dicta. Stated differently, a vote to elect a member of the Rajya Sabha held in the state legislature’s lobby would not qualify as a “legislative vote” and, therefore, would not be protected by Article 194(2). The top law officer cited the 2006 Kuldip Nayar ruling, which concluded that elections for Rajya Sabha seats are only the exercise of the right to vote rather than acts of the legislature as defined by Article 194, to bolster this claim.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran refuted this claim by highlighting the difference between a “house of the legislature” and the legislature itself. He expressed scepticism regarding the respondents’ dependence on Kuldip Nayar (2006) in this particular context, stating that the relevant piece only served as the court’s obiter dicta. In the end, the seven-judge constitution bench did not find the attorney general’s position persuasive. The Supreme Court made it clear in its decision today that Article 194(2) of the Constitution applies to ballots cast even in the state legislature’s lobby.
The Constitution’s Articles 80 (composition of the Council of States) and 194 (powers, privileges, etc., of the house of legislatures and of the members and committees thereof) were specifically cited by the court in its reasoning. Article 80 of the Constitution grants elected members of the state legislative assemblies the exclusive authority to cast ballots for members of the parliament’s upper body. Consequently, the judgement noted that casting a ballot for the Rajya Sabha is a crucial component of their authority and duty.
The court then looked at whether there was a constraint on the vote’s ability to be shielded by parliamentary privilege based on the wording of Article 194(2). The bench distinguished between the terms “legislature” and “house of such a legislature” in its analysis of the provision’s wording. Embracing Ramachandran’s contention, it noted that although the term “legislature” in Article 168 refers to the broader notion that includes the governor and the chambers of the legislature, “house of legislature” refers expressly to the legislative body that the governor may call into session under Article 174. The former is perpetually operational and endures even in the absence of a house summons from the governor.
The bench emphasised that certain parliamentary procedures, like standing and ad hoc committees, do not always occur on the House floor. The functioning of the legislature and parliamentary democracy as a whole, however, depends on these procedures, which include elections for the president and vice president as well as the Rajya Sabha. The court reasoned that there doesn’t seem to be any reason why the discussions held in these committees wouldn’t be covered by parliamentary privilege. Similarly, there doesn’t seem to be any restriction in the language of Articles 105(2) and 194(2), which push such elections outside of the protection afforded by the provisions and onto the Rajya Sabha or for the president and vice president.
The court stated that even when the state legislative assembly or the parliament are not in session, these elections may nevertheless take place inside the legislature’s precincts. In response to the five-judge bench’s comment in Kuldip Nayar, the Supreme Court has now made it clear that voting in Rajya Sabha elections is subject to Article 194(2). In addition to highlighting the vital role that Rajya Sabha elections play within the constitutional framework, the court also emphasised the need to safeguard legislative assembly members’ unrestricted and fearless use of their right to vote when choosing representatives to the upper house of parliament. It was observed that the Rajya Sabha was not only essential to the operation of our democracy but also that the fundamental framework of the Constitution itself is based on its role.
The court underlined that there is a reason why the protection provided by Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution is sometimes referred to as “parliamentary privilege” rather than “legislative privilege.” Ultimately, it made it clear that elected members’ other powers and duties—including the ability to enact laws even while the house is not in session—are also covered by this privilege.
Name of the case: Sita Soren v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019
Bench: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.
Click here to access the judgment.