PSDA- Case Analysis (English II)

TOPIC- SITA SOREN V. UNION OF INDIA

SUBMITTED TO:
Prof. Garima Maheshwari
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, VSLLS

SUBMITTED BY:
Param Bhardwaj
Enrolment no.-10417703823
OF
B.A.LLB HONS., SEMESTER – II
SECTION - B
 INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Sita Soren v. Union Of India case regarding
legislative privileges under Article 194 of the Indian Constitution highlights the
essential role of these privileges in ensuring the smooth functioning of Parliament or
State Legislatures. By examining the purpose and necessity of such privileges, the
Court reaffirms the significance of upholding democratic principles and the rule of
law within the legislative framework. Through meticulous deliberation over multiple
bench hearings, the Court demonstrates a commitment to impartial adjudication and
the preservation of constitutional values. This case serves as a reminder of the
judiciary's crucial role as a guardian of democratic ideals and institutional integrity..

Facts of the Case

An election to a Rajya Sabha seat was held in Jharkhand on 30th March 2012. Sita
Soren, an MLA of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha had allegedly accepted a bribe given
by an independent candidate to the election for the Rajya Sabha seat. Eventually, she
voted for her own party’s candidate, thus, not adhering to the agreement at the time of
allegedly accepting the bribe. The round of election, which took place on 30th March,
was annulled and Sita Soren voted for her own party’s candidate again in the next
round.

Criminal proceedings were instituted against Sita Soren and a chargesheet was filed.
She approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking quashing of the chargesheet and
proceedings. The High Court held that since she did not vote in favour of the bribe-
giver, she was not entitled to protection of privilege under Article 194(2). (One can
read more about privileges on this substack here.) Sita Soren approached the Supreme
Court and the case went through the motions of being heard by four different benches
over almost a decade.

The case was first heard by a bench of two judges which then referred the matter on
23rd September 2014 to a bench of three judges. The bench of three judges considered
it and decided on 7th March 2019 that “having regard to the wide ramification of the
question that has arisen, the doubts raised and the issue being a matter of public
importance” a five-judge bench must consider it. Finally, on 20th September 2023, the
five-judge bench said that the P.V. Narsimha Rao case would need reconsideration
and since that case was decided by a five-judge bench, a larger bench would also
require hearing it.

What is Article 194?

Article 194 of the Constitution of India specifically deals with the powers, privileges
and immunities of the Legislature and its members. First, Article 194 guarantees
freedom of speech in the legislatures of each state in accordance with constitutional
provisions and rules of legislative procedure. This allows legislators to express their
opinions, discuss issues, and represent their constituents without fear of censorship or
retaliation. Article 194 also provides immunity for members of the Legislature from
legal proceedings in relation to comments or votes made by members of the
Legislature or before committees of the Legislature. This immunity extends to the
publication of reports, documents, votes, or proceedings approved by the legislature.
This provision protects legislators from external legal problems that may arise in
connection with their legislative activities and ensures that they can carry out their
duties without undue interference. Moreover, this article emphasizes the autonomy of
the State Legislature by ensuring that the powers, privileges and immunities of the
State Legislature, its members and committees are subject to regulation by the State
Legislature itself through the Legislature. It is similar to Article 105 which deals with
the parliamentary privileges.

P.V. Narshima Rao’s Case

The Congress-led alliance that came to power after the 1991 general election was a
minority administration; riding the tail end of a wave of sympathy following ex-Prime
Minister Rajiv Gandhi's assassination in Tamil Nadu, the Congress won 232 of the
487 seats, below the majority mark of 272. Mr Rao's tenure saw multiple challenges,
including a major financial crisis that triggered the 1991 economic liberalisation
policies that was a political hot potato. The government also faced criticism for the
Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992, and the communal violence that
followed. On the back of these, the opposition introduced a no-confidence motion in
July 1993.

The Congress at the time had 251 votes, including those from other parties offering
external support. This left the party at least a dozen short of simple majority.
However, when voting took place, the government survived by a 14-vote margin. A
year later there were allegations that six MPs from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha,
including party stalwart and former Chief Minister Shibu Soren, had taken bribes to
vote for the government. However, at the time the court held that the lawmakers'
immunity from prosecution extended to votes and speeches in the House; this was
under Article 105 and Article 194 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Judgement

The Supreme Court undertook a functional analysis of the privileges of legislators and
concluded that the privileges which accrue to members of the House individually are
not an end in themselves. The purpose which privileges serve is that they are
necessary for the House and its committees to function. Therefore, we can understand
parliamentary privileges as those rights and immunities which allow the orderly,
democratic, and smooth functioning of Parliament and without which the essential
functioning of the House would be violated.

Considering this background of privileges and the purpose for which legislators have
been granted privileges for their speech and actions in the legislature, the Supreme
Court arrived at a test of “necessity.” According to this test, whether a legislator has a
privilege depends on whether that purported privilege is essential and necessary to the
orderly functioning of the House or its committee.

While holding that bribery is not protected by the privilege of legislators, the SC read
the phrase “in respect of” to not hold a wide scope. The Court in P.V. Narsimha Rao
had considered that anything that had a connection to a vote given or speech made in
Parliament was protected by the privilege of the legislator. This logic allowed the
Court to conclude that a bribe accepted for voting in a particular manner was in
respect of the vote. It further allowed the Court to hold that if a member did not act as
per the agreement, the protection would cease since the bribe would no longer be in
respect of the vote cast by the member. The Court rejected this notion and held that
bribery for vote or speech will not be considered “in respect of” such vote or speech
for Articles 105 and 194. Further, “delivery of results” of the bribe was also an
irrelevant consideration for constituting an offence of bribery.

Accepting the proposition that a member of legislature can escape punishment for
bribery as long as it was connected with their speech or vote in the House would mean
creating a parallel system for such members. It would create a separate class of
citizens, grossly contradictory to the principle of rule of law – that everyone is equal
before the law.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court's functional analysis of legislative privilege, particularly in the
context of the Sita Soren case, highlights the importance of maintaining democratic
principles and the rule of law within the legislative system. In examining the purpose
and necessity of legislative privileges, the Court affirms the fundamental role of these
privileges in promoting the orderly and efficient functioning of the parliament or state
legislatures. The court's nuanced approach recognizes that legislative privilege is not
an absolute right, but rather a necessary tool to ensure the smooth running of
parliamentary proceedings. By upholding the principle of freedom of expression while
adjudicating cases of alleged misconduct, courts strike a balance between protecting
the rights of legislators and maintaining the integrity of the legislative process.
Moreover, courts demonstrate their commitment to careful consideration and fair
rulings by addressing the complexity of cases through numerous hearings over several
years. This cautious approach emphasizes the role of the judiciary as a guardian of
constitutional values and ensures that legal decisions are made with careful
consideration of all relevant factors. In essence, the Supreme Court's judgment in the
Sita Soren case serves as a testament to the resilience of India's democratic institutions
and its commitment to upholding principles of fairness and accountability in the
legislative sphere.