Facts and Background:

• The Appellant was Sita Soren, a Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) member and the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly (MLA).
• The Respondent was the Union of India representing the state in the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellant.
• The Appellant was accused of accepting a bribe from an independent candidate to cast her vote in his favour during the Rajya Sabha elections held on 30 March 2012.
• Despite the alleged bribe, she did not cast her vote for the alleged bribe giver. Instead, she voted for a candidate from her party. The election was annulled, and a fresh election was conducted in which she again voted for her party's candidate.
• The Appellant filed a petition in the High Court of Jharkhand to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings against her. She claimed protection under Article 194(2) of the Constitution and relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998) 4 SCC 626.
• The High Court declined to quash the proceedings, holding that since she did not vote for the alleged bribe giver, she was not entitled to protection under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India.
• The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of India. Due to its substantial public importance, a two-judge bench referred the matter to a three-judge Bench. The three-judge bench acknowledged the case's wide ramifications and the doubts raised and referred the matter to a larger bench for further consideration. A five-judge bench expressed doubts about the correctness of the majority decision in PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) and referred the issue to a seven-judge bench.
• The case was before the present court, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, to reconsider whether a legislator who receives a bribe to cast a vote in a certain direction is protected by parliamentary privilege under Article 194(2) of the Constitution and to re-examine the correctness of precedent set in PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE).
  
  
  
  

Overview of the PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998) 4 SCC 626 judgment:

• In 1991, the Congress (I) party, led by Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao , formed a minority government after the general elections for the Tenth Lok Sabha. A no-confidence motion was moved against the government, which was defeated when several allegedly bribed MPs voted against it.
• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) initiated a criminal case against these MPs, alleging they accepted bribes to vote against the motion. PV Narasimha Rao and other MPs were accused of being part of this conspiracy.
• The Supreme Court, led by Justice SP Bharucha, held the alleged bribe-takers who voted against the no-confidence motion had immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. However, those who abstained and the alleged bribe-givers did not have this immunity. Parliament could take action against both for breaching privileges and contempt.
• Article 105(2) did not exempt MPs from prosecution for offences. It only protected them for actions related to their parliamentary duties. Thus, bribe-givers who conspired with an MP were not immune and could be prosecuted.
• Justice SC Agarwal dissented, arguing that MPs who accept bribes should not be immune from prosecution, as this would harm parliamentary democracy and the rule of law.
  
  

Relevant sections:

Constitution of India:

• Articles 105- Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof.
  Article 194- Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof.
  
  

Main issue:

Does a legislator enjoy immunity from prosecution under Article 105 (2) or Article 194(2) of the Constitution for accepting bribes to vote in Parliament or an Assembly?