The seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court said it disagreed with the judgment in PV Narasimha and the judgment in PV Narasimha which grants immunity to legislators for allegedly bribery for casting a vote or speech has “wide ramifications and overruled”.
The Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench in its unanimous view overruled the 1998 PV Narasimha Roa judgment case which granted immunity to MPs/MLAs from prosecution to bribery for voting in Parliament.
While hearing the matter, the Chief Justice said, “We have independently adjudicated on all aspects of the controversy. Do Parliamentarians enjoy immunity? We disagree and overrule majority on this aspect.”
A bench of seven judges headed by the Chief Justice of India in October last year reserved the order after hearing the submissions. Other judges on the bench are Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.
Earlier, a five-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench of seven judges to deal with the issues, observing that it was an important issue having a significant bearing on the morality of polity.
The court said that the purpose of Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) is to ensure that members of parliament and state legislatures are able to discharge duties in an atmosphere of freedom without fear of the consequences.
On March 7, 2019, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench, considering the wide ramifications of the question that has arisen. The court had then observed that the doubts raised and the issue being a matter of substantial public importance, the matter required to be considered by a larger bench.
The issue was raised while the court was hearing a petition filed by politician Sita Soren. Sita Soren has sought the criminal prosecution launched against her to be nullified on a claim of immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India.
The charges against Sita Soren were that she had allegedly accepted a bribe to vote in favour of a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha election that was held sometime in 2012 in Jharkhand.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a report from the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) on the steps being taken to control air pollution in and around Delhi. The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a report from the Commission ...
Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud recently spoke on how justice and the outcome of the law depends on who is wielding the law in their hands. When the law is wielded with compassion, it is capable of producing justice, ...
Article 32 of the Constitution gives individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court if they feel their fundamental rights have been violated. Supreme Court on Tuesday deprecated the trend of the accused in money laundering cases using Article 32 ...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued guidelines in compliance with the Supreme Court directions in Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. to ensure that police officers do not make unnecessary arrests and that Magistrates do ...
As global business transactions increase, so do the risks of cross-border disputes. When parties from different countries find themselves in conflict, traditional litigation can be slow, costly, and fraught with jurisdictional complexities. This is where Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)—specifically, international ...
A vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K V Vishwanathan said this prerequisite existed earlier as well and it was not inclined to intervene in the matter. New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging the ...