Petitioner- P.V. Narsimha Rao
Defendant- State
Statutes Referred-
The Constitution of India
Prevention of corruption act
Merchandise mark act
Cases Referred-
l.k. Advani Vs centra bureau of investigation R.C (S)/91
Pandit M.S.M Sharma Vs shri shri krishna Sinha 1959 AIR 395, 1959 SCR (1) 806
The state of Tripura Vs the province of east Bengal 1951 AIR 23, 1951 SCR 1
Tej kiran Vs sanjiva reddy 1970 AIR 1573, 1971 SCR (1) 612
Facts-
- The defendant was charged with solicitation and acceptance of bribes. Further the district court, on petitioner’s pre-trial motion, the court has dismissed the indictment on the ground that the speech or debate clause of the constitution shielded him ‘from any prosecution for alleged bribery to perform a legislative act, in the supreme court of India, in which the petitioner pretends that the supreme court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain because the district court’s action was not a decision or judgement setting aside or dismissing the indictment but was instead a summary judgement on the merits based on the facts of the case.
Issues Raised
- Whether a member of congress may be prosecuted under 18 ss 201(c)(1), 201(g), for accepting bribe in exchange for a promise relating to an official act?
- Whether by virtue of article 105 of the constitution of india, member of parliament can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court?
- Whether a member of parliament is a “public servant” falling within the purview of the prevention of corruption act, 1988?
Parties Contention
Petitioner-
- The petitioner has challenged the defendant for taking bribe for the official work which to be done in their part of job only.
- Also stated that, the bribery was illegal under section-105 of the act.
Defendant
- The defendant has taken a plea that the bribe has taken by their side whereas the district court’s judgment was also challenged in the supreme court.
Judgement
- The court has taken the judgement into a literal interpretation of the provision 105(1) and 105(2) increases the scope of immunity under it. According to article 105(2) of the constitution of India, a member of the parliament is immune from any kind of proceedings against him in respect of any vote or in respect of the parliament.
- Hence, the court has held that the member is liable on his personal basis not taking any defense using his authority or power is not applicable to the personnel as this will create a negative impact on the image of the parliament or any institution.
Rule of Law
The basic rule of law that was applied here was that the image of the parliament has to be protected whether the constituinality will not be contrained.
Conclusion
To conclude the above case, the court has taken appropriate decision that the asking for bribe or taking bribe is totally a wrongful act and was against the system that might also affect respect or honour of the institution.
By Krishna Das