ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

SC seals Rao's fate in JMM bribery case

In a severe blow to former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao and other accused 'bribe-givers' in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs payoff case, the Supreme Court today ruled that they could not claim immunity from prosecution under Article 105 (2) of the Constitution.

However, those accused of bribe-taking in the case, except former Union minister Ajit Singh, would be entitled to immunity under the section, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S C Aggarwal stated.

The apex court's verdict came on appeals filed by Rao and 19 others challenging the September 12, 1997 order of the Delhi high court, upholding the decision of the special Central Bureau of Investigation court to frame charges against them.

According to some legal experts, the implications of the court's ruling was that the prosecution will continue against Rao and others charged with bribe-giving, including Communications Minister Buta Singh, former Union minister Satish Sharma, former Haryana chief minister Bhajan Lal, former Karnataka chief minister minister M Veerappa Moily and his colleagues H M Revanna and Ramalinga Reddy, and Rao's relative V Rajeshwara Rao.

On the other hand, the bribe-takers, except Ajit Singh who did not vote on the no-confidence motion against the Rao-led government on July 28 1993, would not be liable for prosecution anymore as they would be entitled for protection under Article 105 (2).

In all, the bench today delivered three judgments on two constitutional questions:

• Whether members of Parliament and state legislatures were entitled to immunity under Article 105 (2).
• Whether the MPs were public servants under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether sanction by the appropriate authority was required to be obtained before criminal prosecutions were initiated against them.

Article 105 (2) of the Constitution reads ''no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either house of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings''.

The judges took the view that Article 105 (2) does not protect corruption. Quoting examples from the UK, the US and Australia, the judges ruled that such an immunity is given to the legislators not for their protection, but to preserve legislative independence. Moreover, accepting bribes is neither part of the legislative process nor is it a legislative act.

Agreeing that the definition of a public servant fits the MPs, the court said, ''Since there is no authority competent to remove an MP and grant sanction, the court can take cognizance of the offences. However, till a law is enacted, the prosecuting agency will obtain the permission of the Rajya Sabha chairman or the Lok Sabha speaker as the case may be.''

The judges said the appeals would now go to a three-judge bench for deciding any other issues that may have bearing on the case.

Besides Ajit Singh, the other alleged bribe-takers include former JMM MPs Simon Marandi, Suraj Mandal and Shibhu Soren, former Union minister Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, former Janata Dal (A) MPs Ram Sharan Yadav, Anadi Charan Das, Roshan Lal, Abhay Pratap Singh and Haji Ghulam Mohammad Khan. Another co-accused bribe-recipient, Shailendra Mahto, was granted pardon after he turned approver.

Two Bangalore-based businessmen, Thimme Gowda and D Audikeshavalu, who helped to mobilise funds given to these MPs, are also accused in the case.

The other judges of the bench were Justices G N Ray, A S Anand, S P Bharucha and S Rajendra Babu.

Senior counsel P P Rao, appearing for Rao, had submitted before the five-judge constitutional bench that there was complete constitutional immunity for the accused under Article 105 (2) which states that no member of Parliament can be put to trial for anything said or any vote given in the house.

''The immunity so granted is not only applicable to the manner of voting but also to the motivation behind it,'' he contended.

The special constitution bench had started hearing on December 9 the arguments on Rao's special leave petition challenging the Delhi high court's September 12 order upholding the framing of charges in the multi-million-rupee bribes-for-votes case.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report