The Supreme Court Forms A Seven-Judge Bench To Review Its 1998 Ruling On MPs.

A seven-member panel of judges in the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud at its helm, is set to review the Supreme Court's 1998 ruling that provided Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) immunity from legal action for accepting bribes in exchange for delivering speeches or votes in Parliament and state legislatures. A notification posted on the Supreme Court's official website has indicated that the panel will convene to address this matter on October 4.

"Constitution Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice A S Bopanna, Justice M M Sundresh, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Manoj Misra is constituted to hear criminal appeal no. 451/2019 titled Sita Soren vs Union of India on October 4 (Wednesday)," the notice said.

Nearly a quarter-century after the JMM bribery scandal sent shockwaves across the country, the Supreme Court agreed on September 20 to revisit its 1998 ruling, acknowledging that this was a matter of significant importance for the "morality of polity."

A panel of five judges at the apex court made the decision to refer this issue to a larger seven-judge bench. In its 1998 verdict, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, during the PV Narasimha Rao versus CBI case, had determined that members of Parliament were shielded by the Constitution from criminal prosecution for speeches given and votes cast within the Parliament, as outlined in Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) of the Constitution.

Article 105(2) of the Constitution explicitly states that no Member of Parliament can be subjected to legal proceedings in court for anything they say or any vote they cast within Parliament or its committees. An analogous provision exists for Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) under Article 194(2).

In 2019, a bench presided over by then-Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, while considering an appeal lodged by Sita Soren, a JMM MLA from Jama and the daughter-in-law of party leader Shibu Soren, who was implicated in the JMM bribery scandal, referred this pivotal issue to a five-judge bench. The bench acknowledged that it had far-reaching implications and was of substantial public significance.

Sita Soren had been accused of accepting a bribe in exchange for her vote during the 2012 Rajya Sabha election. She argued that the same constitutional provision that had protected her father-in-law in the JMM bribery scandal should also apply to her case, granting her immunity from prosecution.

In response to her plea, a three-judge bench had indicated that it would review its decision in the high-profile JMM bribery case, which involved Shibu Soren, a former Jharkhand chief minister and former union minister, along with four other JMM MPs who were alleged to have accepted bribes to vote against a no-confidence motion aimed at toppling the P V Narasimha Rao government in 1993. The Narasimha Rao government, which was in a minority, survived the no-confidence vote with their support.

The CBI had registered a case against Sita Soren and the four other JMM Lok Sabha MPs, but the Supreme Court had quashed the case, citing the immunity from prosecution provided to them under Article 105(2) of the Constitution.

Sita Soren had filed an appeal against the decision of the Jharkhand High Court, dated February 17, 2014, which had refused to dismiss a criminal case filed against her. The case alleged that she had accepted a bribe from one candidate and voted for another during the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections.