It is the job of the supreme court to interpret the Constitution. Under this, while explaining the provision related to privilege in the latest decision, the supreme court has accepted that there is no exemption for bribery under the relevant provisions of Article 105 (2) and Article 194. A member of the legislature who indulges in bribery commits a crime. The ability to cast a vote or decide how a vote should be cast does not require bribery. The same principle also applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the house or any committee.
The supreme court has clarified that recognizing the Court's jurisdiction to prosecute a member of the legislature who is alleged to be involved in bribery neither increases the possibility of abuse against individual members of the legislature Nor does it decrease. The crime of bribery is completed when a member accepts the bribe. The crime has nothing to do with whether the member votes in favor of the person giving the bribe or not.
supreme court removed the contradiction
This was an important aspect in the PV narasimha Rao case. The one who took bribe and voted in favor of the bribe giver was getting immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194. On the other hand, someone who is ready to take bribe but votes with an independent decision will be prosecuted. This was a contradictory situation. In the latest decision, the supreme court has made it clear that such interpretation is contrary to the text and purpose of Articles 105 and 194.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel