Supreme Court Discards Its Own Judgement
In a landmark judgment, a seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court has overturned a 25-year-old precedent, ruling that MPs and MLAs cannot claim immunity from prosecution in cases of bribery for votes or speeches in the House.
 |
| Seven Judge SC Bench: Copyright Web |
The SC also held that both the court and Parliament can exercise jurisdiction on the actions of lawmakers in parallel. This is because the purpose of punishment by the House is different from the purpose of a criminal trial.
Clean Politics
Many countries provide some form of legislative immunity to protect lawmakers in the course of their duties, promoting open and uninhibited debate. Examples include the United States, where members of Congress have immunity for statements made in their official capacity. However, this immunity usually doesn't extend to criminal activities like bribery.
In India, as of March 4, 2024, lawmakers cannot claim immunity from prosecution in cases of bribery for votes. This is the outcome of the landmark judgment in which the Supreme Court overturned a previous judgement of 1998 that allowed such immunity.
This means that bribery is now considered a criminal act that undermines the integrity of the legislative process and therefore lawmakers can be held accountable if they accept bribes to influence their votes.
PM Modi has welcomed the Supreme Court's judgment on ‘immunity in bribery case’ and asserted that ‘it will clean politics’. Congress’s Abhishek Manu Singhvi says this had been ‘a long-pending issue for many years to correct a purely legal issue’. Overall, this is definitely a welcome verdict that is appreciated by the whole public as well all the political parties.
Significant Impacts
However, this Supreme Court judgement, contradicting its own judgement from 26 years ago, has a significant impact in several ways:
- First, we expect the Supreme Court to provide a stable and predictable legal landscape. When a new judgement contradicts an older one, it creates confusion about what the law actually is, leaving people and businesses unsure on how to act.
- Secondly, the public relies on the Supreme Court to be the ultimate interpreter of the law. When the Court contradicts itself, it can erode public trust in the judiciary, with people questioning the fairness and consistency of the legal system.
- Thirdly, does changing social norms influence legal interpretations, even though interpreting the Constitution and laws and then applying them to specific situations gives the Court some leeway to consider evolving societal shifts when making decisions?
- Finally, has the Supreme Court considered the potential consequences of this new interpretation on ongoing cases that deal with the same legal issue? Will the case of Trinamool MP, Mahua Moitra accused of taking bribes, including ₹ 2 crore in cash and "luxury gift items" in exchange for asking questions, be likely decided based on the new judgement, even though it was filed before the new judgment was issued?
The verdict defines parliamentary privilege and its boundaries especially in relation to freedom of speech. We can expect the learned judges who constituted this watershed event, marking it a turning point in the Indian politics, to come out with more explanations clarifying the above points.
Comments
Post a Comment