De-privileging bribe

Context:

The recent Supreme Court verdict overturning the distinction between 'bribe-givers' and 'bribe-takers' in the JMM bribery case has sparked significant discussion on parliamentary privileges and the integrity of legislative functioning.

Correction of Legal Anomaly:

• Rectification: The Supreme Court rectified a long-standing legal anomaly that granted immunity to MPs and State legislators accused of accepting bribes in connection with their parliamentary duties.
• Previous distinction: The previous artificial distinction, established over 25 years ago, allowed prosecution of bribe-givers but shielded bribe-takers from legal consequences based on parliamentary privilege.
• Overturning: The ruling overturned the majority verdict in P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State (CBI/SPE) (1998), emphasizing probity as a crucial aspect of parliamentary functioning.

Clarification of Parliamentary Privilege:

• Clarification: The Constitution Bench clarified that parliamentary privilege, safeguarding freedom of speech and independence of legislators, does not extend to bribery, as it is unrelated to the casting of votes or decision-making.
• Immunity should not cover corruption: While the 1998 verdict prioritized protecting members from persecution for their parliamentary actions, the recent ruling emphasizes that immunity should not cover acts of corruption.
• No shield formal legalities: The verdict ensures that members are not shielded from legal accountability for actions unrelated to their legislative functions, aligning with public expectations of ethical conduct.

Upholding Legislative Integrity:

• Importance of preserving the integrity: The judgment underscores the importance of preserving the integrity of legislative processes by ensuring that members are not influenced by monetary inducements in their decision-making.
• Balance between parliamentary privilege and accountability: By recognizing the court's jurisdiction to prosecute members for bribery, the ruling maintains a balance between parliamentary privilege and accountability, reinforcing public trust in democratic institutions.
• Reinforcement: Overall, the verdict reinforces the principle that elected representatives must act in the public interest and adhere to ethical standards, contributing to the enhancement of democratic governance.