WHAT WAS 1998 NARASIMHA RAO CASE BEHIND BIG ORDER ON MPs, MLAs' IMMUNITY?

In 1998, Supreme Court said lawmakers’ immunity from prosecution extended to votes and speeches in the House; this was under Article 105 and Article 194 of the Constitution.

- 

 

In a landmark verdict by the Supreme Court, a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said members of parliament and state legislatures are not immune from prosecution in bribery cases. The verdict set aside a 1998 judgment in which the court ruled in favour of immunity in cases where MPs or MLAs take bribes for a speech or a vote in Parliament or the Assembly. Bribery, the court said Monday, is not protected by parliamentary privileges and overturned its 1998 verdict - the PV Narasimha Rao case, in which the exPrime Minister and others accused of bribing MPs to vote for the Congress-led government in a no-trust motion were ruled to have immunity from criminal prosecution for any speech made and/or any vote cast inside the House.

“We have independently adjudicated on all aspects of the controversy. Do Parliamentarians enjoy immunity? We disagree and overrule the majority on this aspect,” the Chief Justice said.

PV NARASIMHA RAO CASE BACKGROUND

The Congress-led alliance that came to power after the 1991 general election was a minority administration; riding the tail end of a wave of sympathy following exPrime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in Tamil Nadu, the Congress won 232 of the 487 seats, below the majority mark of 272.