Case Note & Summary
The case involved the prosecution of a Member of Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a Member of Parliament enjoys immunity from prosecution for offences involving bribery related to parliamentary duties. The court examined the definitions and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly Section 2[c] which defines a public servant, and Section 19(1) which requires sanction for prosecution. The court concluded that while a Member of Parliament is indeed a public servant, the absence of a competent authority to grant sanction does not preclude the court from taking cognizance of the offences. However, it mandated that the prosecuting agency must seek permission from the appropriate parliamentary authority before proceeding with charges. The court also analyzed Article 105 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the protections afforded to Members of Parliament under this article do not extend to criminal acts such as bribery. The court clarified that the freedom of speech and voting rights of Members of Parliament are protected under Article 105(1) and (2), but these protections do not shield them from prosecution for criminal offences. Ultimately, the court upheld the prosecution while delineating the boundaries of parliamentary immunity.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Parliamentary Immunity - Interpretation of Article 105 - A Member of Parliament is a public servant under Section 2[c] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the court can take cognizance of offences without sanction, but must obtain permission from the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha before filing a chargesheet. The court held that the immunity under Article 105(2) does not extend to criminal prosecution for bribery related to parliamentary functions (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Member of Parliament enjoys immunity from prosecution under Article 105 of the Constitution for offences involving bribery.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the prosecution of the Member of Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act, clarifying that while Members of Parliament are public servants, they do not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for bribery related to their parliamentary duties.
Law Points
- Public servant definition
- Sanction for prosecution
- Parliamentary immunity
- Freedom of speech in Parliament
- Interpretation of constitutional provisions
