Text

Sita Soren vs. Union of India

---

FACTS
Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and the Jharkhand
Legislative Assembly, is the appellant in this case. She was accused of accepting a bribe from
an independent candidate who allegedly sought her vote in his favour during the Rajya Sabha
elections. Although she accepted the bribe, the open ballot system prevented her from casting
her vote for the candidate from whom she had received the bribe. Instead, she voted for a
JMM candidate.
Subsequently, criminal charges were filed against her under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Seeking to quash these charges, she approached the Jharkhand High Court, asserting
that, as an MLA, she was protected under Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
The High Court, in its ruling, observed that there was no direct nexus between the bribe and
the vote, as she did not act as promised. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in
P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1988), which held that members of the legislature enjoy
parliamentary privileges under Article 105(2), granting them immunity for their speech and
votes in the House.
In 2014, the appellant moved the Supreme Court, seeking special leave to appeal against the
High Court's order. She contended that Article 194(2) should be interpreted broadly to extend
similar privileges to members of the State Legislature.


ISSUES:
1) Is the offence of bribery under Section 7(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA)
complete upon the mere acceptance of a bribe, even if the act for which the bribe was
given is not carried out?
2) Does a legislator enjoy immunity from prosecution under Article 105(2) or Article 194(2)
of the Constitution of India for accepting bribes in exchange for voting in Parliament or a
State Assembly?

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES:

Petitioner’s/Appellant’s Arguments:
a) The argument was based on the premise that any offence committed prior to voting or
speaking in the legislature is also protected by parliamentary immunity.
b) Her counsel contended that bribery should not be treated differently from other criminal
offences covered under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.
c) To support this, the counsel provided an example of hate speech in Parliament, stating
that while such speech is protected, any prior conspiracy to engage in it should also be
shielded under parliamentary immunity.
d) In response to the respondent’s argument distinguishing a vote in the Rajya Sabha from
parliamentary immunity, the counsel asserted that Rajya Sabha elections are
constitutionally mandated and, therefore, enjoy the same privileges.

Respondent’s Arguments:
a) The argument was supported by the case State of Kerala v. Ajith K (2021), which held
that the "cloak of immunity" should only be extended after distinguishing between
activities in the legislature—whether they are legitimate or purely legislative. In
contrast, the Narasimha Rao case extended immunity to illegitimate actions that
impact parliamentary and legislative processes.
b) Another key contention was that the concept of "nexus" for determining immunity is
vague. If accepted, it could shield crimes under various laws, including the Prevention
of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The
counsel instead supported the "integral part test" outlined in the minority opinion of
the Narasimha Rao case. A respondent argued that legislative privileges should begin
and end within the House of Parliament, meaning any criminal act committed outside
the House should be punishable, regardless of its connection to legislative functions.
c) They further contended that the minority opinion in the Narasimha Rao case should
be reconsidered, as it places undue emphasis on antecedent conduct. They stressed
that parliamentary privileges should not be misused, as Articles 105 and 194 protect
only votes and speeches related to legislative matters. Since Rajya Sabha elections are
a separate constitutional process, immunity should not apply in Sita Soren v. Union of
India.

d) Lastly, they argued that granting immunity for bribery would undermine democracy.
They criticized the Narasimha Rao case for basing immunity on whether a promise or
act was fulfilled, asserting that such an approach was flawed and detrimental to the
integrity of legislative processes.


HELD:
On March 4, 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
ruled that lawmakers do not have parliamentary immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2)
for acts of bribery. This decision overruled the 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State judgment,
which had provided conditional immunity to legislators.
The Court held that accepting a bribe constitutes an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, as legislators are considered public servants. Therefore, in Sita
Soren v. Union of India, her liability for bribery arose the moment she accepted the bribe,
regardless of whether she cast her vote as promised. The Court criticized the Narasimha Rao
ruling for its “paradoxical outcome,” where immunity was granted upon accepting a bribe but
revoked if the legislator failed to act accordingly.
Emphasizing the threat bribery poses to parliamentary democracy, the Court established a
two-fold test for legislative immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). Immunity applies
only when (i) the act involves the collective function of the legislature and (ii) it directly
relates to the discharge of legislative duties. This principle extends to elections for the
legislature, Rajya Sabha, President, and Vice President.

---

Detail Information

Title

Sita Soren vs. Union of India

Court

: supreme court., 2024

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 462

Matter(s)

-

Councels

Paramjit Singh Patwalia Raju Ramachandran

Statement of Responsibility

Mythri Alampally, REVA University

See Also

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment