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 Monday th October held that an insurance company cannot claim that it is not liable to pay compensation in a motor vehicle accident claim just because the vehicle owner did not verify the genuineness of the...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday February came down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publish misleading advertisements regarding medicinal cures despite making an assurance to the Court earlier in November last year that no such statements would be...
Introduction For Non-Resident Indians NRIs owning property in India is not just a financial investment but also a connection to their roots and heritage However navigating the legal landscape of property ownership in India can be complex especially for those...
The rise of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology has revolutionized the financial world but it has also brought about a series of complex legal challenges As more businesses and individuals adopt digital currencies and decentralized systems governments and regulatory bodies are...
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that not all marriages require a public declaration or solemnisation Not every valid marriage requires a public declaration or solemnisation in a particular manner the Supreme Court held on Monday as it underlined...
Synopsis The court was hearing an appeal by a woman challenging the decision of the trial court nbsp whereby it has dismissed her petition seeking divorce from the man on the ground of cruelty and desertion While granting divorce to...