Mahi Thakur, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
Kishan Pavan Daaga, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
INTRODUCTION
The case of P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), 19981 (popularly known as the JMM bribery case) is a landmark judgment that addresses the complex interplay between parliamentary privilege given to MPs, corruption, and the accountability of public officials in India. There are two very significant questions that have been raised and decided by the supreme court in this case-
Whether by virtue of Articles 105(1) and 105(2), a member of Parliament can claim immunity from prosecution before a criminal court on a charge of bribery in relation to the proceedings in Parliament?
Whether a member of Parliament is a ‘Public Servant’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
The Narsimha Rao’s government did not enjoy a majority at the centre in the Lok Sabha Election in 1993. Therefore, a vote of no-confidence was moved against the government by the opposition parties.
Furthermore, the case arose from allegations of bribery where members of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) were given large sums of money by the ruling party during a no-confidence motion against former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's government in 1993 voted against the motion. Consequently, the no-confidence motion was defeated in the house with 251 for and 265 against. The ruling, which led to a split decision in the Supreme Court (3:2), three opinions were authored in this case- by SC Agarwal (for himself and Dr AS Anand), SP Bharucha (for himself and S Rajendra Babu), and an opinion by GN Ray.
Commentaires