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 has held that the eligibility condition of minimum 75% marks does not promote the object of introducing the sports quota, and such criterion subverts the object and falls afoul of the equality clause in Article 14 of ...
The Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain a plea by 'Shri Krishna Janambhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust' seeking a survey of the Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah mosque premises in Mathura to determine whether it was built on a pre-existing Hindu temple. The apex ...
The real estate and construction sector in India is one of the fastest-growing industries, but it is also one of the most dispute-prone. Delays in possession, payment disputes, contractor disagreements, quality issues, and non-compliance with project timelines often lead to ...
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era law, criminalized "unnatural offenses," including consensual same-sex relationships. However, in a historic judgment on September 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of India decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, marking a significant ...
The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 19) set aside the conviction and death sentence of a man accused of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a three-month-old infant after noting that he had not been give a 'proper opportunity' to defend himself. ...
The plea said that affordability of medicines is a vital factor that contributes to effective healthcare delivery and the realization of the ‘right to health’ The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a PIL seeking disciplinary actions against doctors ...