TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the law, the prosecuting agency, before filing a charge-sheet in respect of an offence punishable under Section 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 of the 1988 Act against a Member of Parliament in a criminal court, shall obtain the permission of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the case may be. - [Withe CRL. A. NOS. 1209/97, 1210-12/97, 1213/97, 1214/97, 1215/97, 1216/97, 1217-18/97, 1219/97, 1220/97, 1221/97,1222/97, 186/98 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2/98) AND 187/98 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 366/98)] - - - Dated:- 17-4-1998 - S. C. Agrawal And A. S. Anand,JJ. JUDGMENT S. C. Agrawal, J. Whether by virtue of Article 105 of the Constitution a Member of Parliament can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court, and whether a Member of Parliament is a public servant falling within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act ]. These are the two questions which have come up for consideration before this bench in these matters. In the General Election for the Tenth Lok Sabha held in 1991 the Congress (I) part, emerged as the single largest party a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22, 1977 in the court of Special Judge, New Delhi. In the first charge sheet dated October 30, 1996 it was stated that investigation had revealed that A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A- 6, Buta Singh [hereinafter referred to as A-7 ], and other unknown persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to defeat the No Confidence Motion by resorting to giving and accepting of gratification as a motive or reward and in pursuance thereof four Members of Parliament belonging to JMM) A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6) accepted illegal gratification to vote against the Motion and because of their votes and some other votes the Government led by A-1 survived. It was also stated in the charge sheet that investigation has also revealed that the four Members of Parliament belonging to JMM had been bribed in crores of rupees for voting agains the No Confidence Motion . The said charge sheet was filed against A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 and other unknown persons in respect of offences under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the 1988 Act and substantive offences thereunder. The second charge sheet dated December 9, 1996 was in the nature of a supplementary charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC and Section 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the 1988 Act and substantive offences thereunder. An application was submitted by A-6 (Shailendra Mahto) under Section 306 Cr. P.C. for grant of pardon for being treated as an approver. The said application was referred to the Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and after considering the said statement the Special Judge, by order dated April 5, 1997, allowed the application of A-6 and tendered pardon to him on the condition of his making a full and true disclosure of all the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offences of every other person concerned, whether as a principal or abettor in the commission of the offences under the charge sheets. After hearing the arguments on charges, the Special Judge passed the order dated May 6, 1997 wherein he held that there is sufficient evidence on record to justify framing of charges against all the appellants. In so far as A-1, A-2, A-7 and A-8 to A-14 are concerned, the Special Judge held that there is sufficient evidence on record to justify framing of charges under Section 120-B IPC re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence punishable under the provisions of the 1988 Act and there cannot be any offence of conspiracy of giving and taking of bribe by a Member of Parliament. The said contention was rejected by the Special Judge on the view that the question whether a Member of Parliament is a public servant is concluded by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the cases of L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation wherein it has been held that Member of Parliament is a public servant under the 1988 Act. It was also urged before the Special Judge that the case could not be proceeded against the accused persons since previous sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the 1988 Act had not been obtained. The said contention was also rejected by the Special Judge on the ground that no previous sanction of prosecution for an accuse under Section 19 is necessary if he has ceased to hold a public office which was allegedly misuse by him and in the present case at the time of filing of the charge sheets and on the sate of taking of cognizance by the Court Tenth Lok Sabha had come to an end and after the Election in 1996 at the accused persons who were the members of the Tenth Lok Sabha had ceased t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) of Article 105 of the Constitution the High Court has held that to offer bribe to a Member of Parliament to influence him in his conduct as a member has been treated as a b reach of privilege in England but merely treating the commission of a criminal offence as a breach of privilege does not amount to ouster jurisdiction of the ordinary court to try penal offences and that to claim that in such matters the courts would have no jurisdiction would amount to claiming a privilege to commit a crime. The High Court has also pointed out that four notices of a question of privilege dated February 26 and 27, 1997 were given by four members of Lok Sabha, namely, Sarva Shri Jaswant Singh, Indrajit Gupta, Arjun Singh and Jagmeet Singh Brar against A-1 and the four members belonging to JMM (A-3 to A-6). The notices were forwarded to the said accused for comments and after discussion on the said notices during which members of all parties expressed their views the Speaker disallowed the notice given by Shri Arjun Singh on March 11, 1996 and the notices of a question of privilege given by Sarva Shri Jaswant Singh, Indrajit Gupta and Jagmeet Singh Brar were disallowed by the Speaker on March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, required to be heard and disposed of by a Constitution Bench. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the Constitution Bench may only deal with the questions relating to interpretation of Article 105 of the Constitution and the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act to a Member of Parliament and Member of State Legislative Assembly and the other questions can be considered by the Division Bench. During the pendency of the appeals in this Court the Special Judge has framed the charges against the accused persons [appellants herein] on September 25, 1997. All the appellants have been charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with Section 7, 12 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act. A-3 to A-5, belonging to JMM and A-15 to A-21, belonging to JD(A), have been further charged with offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act. A-3 to A-5 have also been charged with the off once under Section 193 IPC. The other appellants, viz., A-1, A-2 and A-7 to A-14 have been charged with offence under Section 12 of the 1988 Act for having abetted the commission of the offenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11.- Whoever abets any offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct.- (a) X X X X (b) X X X X (c) X X X X (d) If he,- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (e) X X X X (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. The charge of cri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93 by illegal means viz. to obtain or agree to obtain gratification other than legal remunerations from your above named accused persons other than JMM and Janta Dal (A) MPs as a motive or reward for defeating the no confidence motion and in pursuance thereof above named accused persons other than JMM and Janta Dal (A) passed on several lacs of rupees to you or your other co-accused namely JMM and Janta Dal (A) MPs which amounts were accepted by you or your said co-accused persons and they by you have committed an offence punishable u/s 120B r/w Sections 7, 12 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act and within my cognizance. The charges under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act agains A-3 to A-5 and A-15 to A-21 are in these terms :- Secondly, that you being a public servant while functioning in your capacity of Member of Parliament (10th Lok Sabha) during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy demanded and accepted from your co-accused other than JMM JD(A) MPs mentioned above a sum of ₹ 280 lacs for yourself and other JMM MPs named above other your legal remuneration as a motive or reward for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t their supremacy which culminated in the Bill of Rights, 1989 whereby it was secured that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament (Article 9). On May 2. 1695 the House of Commons passed a resolution whereby it resolved that the offer of money, or other advantage, to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament is a high crime and misdemeanor and tends to the subversion of the English constitution . In the spirit of this resolution, the offering to a Member of either House of a bribe to influence him in his conduct as a Member or of any fee or reward in connection with the promotion of or opposition to any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to the House or any committee thereof, has been treated as a breach of privilege. [See : May s Parliamentary Practice, 21 Edn. p. 128]. In its report submitted in July 1976 the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life (chaired by Lord Salmon) has pointed out that neither the statutory nor the common law applies to the bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the statement in the Report of the Salmon Commission that common law does not apply to bribery or attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament in respect of his parliamentary activities, has been doubted by Prof. Graham Zellick who has said that Sir James Fitzjames Stephen appears to be the only writer to have taken the same view in his Digest of the Criminal Law (1878) art. 118, and that there is nothing in the English authorities which compels to the conclusion that a Member of Parliament is not a public officer and is not punishable at common law for bribery and breach of trust. [See : Grahma Zellick : Bribery of Members of Parliament and the Criminal Law, 1979 Public Law p. 31 at pp. 39, 40]. The question whether offering of a bribe to and acceptance of the same by a Member of Parliament constitutes an offence at common law came up for consideration before a criminal court (Buckley J.) in 1992 in R.V. Currie Ors. In that case it was alleged that a Member of Parliament had accepted bribes as a reward for using his influence as a Member in respect of application for British nationality of one of the persons offering the bribe. The indictment was sought to be quashed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultation Paper No. 145, reference has been made to a document entitled Clarification of the law relating to the Bribery of Members of Parliament , published by the Home Office in December 1996, whereby the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has been invited to consider the following four broad options :- (1) to rely solely on Parliamentary privileges to deal with accusations of the bribery by Members of Parliament; (2) subject Members of Parliament to the present corruption statutes in full; (3) distinguish between conduct which should be dealt with by the criminal law and that which should be left to Parliament itself, and (4) make criminal proceedings subject to the approval of the relevant House of Parliament. AUSTRALIA : Even though Article 9 of the Bill of Rights is applicable in Australia but as far back as in 1975 the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that an attempt to bribe a Member of the Legislative Assembly in order to influence his vote was a criminal offence, a misdemeanor at common law.[See : R.V. White, 13 SCR (NSW) 332]. The said decision in White was approved by the High Curt of Australia in R.V. Boston Ors., (1923) 33 CLR 386. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vote in Parliament in a particular direction and paying him money to induce him to use his position as a member outside Parliament for the purpose of influencing or putting pressure Ministers. A member of Parliament cannot divest his position of the right which it confers to take part in the proceedings of Parliament he cannot use his position as a member of Parliament stripped of its principal attribute. The influence which his position as a member of Parliament enables him to exert on a Minister has its source in his right to sit and vote in Parliament, and it would be idle to pretend that in discussions and negotiations between a Minister and a member that right, or the power it confers on a member, can be disregarded or ignored. The tenure of office of the Minister and his colleagues may be dependent on the vote or on the abstention from voting of an individual member, or even on his words or his silence in Parliament. [pp. 392, 393] Similarly, Issacs and Rich JJ, have said :- It is impossible to sever the voluntarily assumed intervention departmentally from the legislative position to which by custom it is recognised as incidental. A member so intervening speaks as m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agrees to ask for or receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on an understanding that the exercise by him of his duty or authority as such a member will, in any manner, be influenced of affected, is guilty of an offence. So also a person who, in order to influence or affect a member of either House of Parliament in the exercise of his duty or authority as such a member or to induce him to absent himself from the House of which he is a member, any committee of the house or from any committee of both House of the Parliament, gives or confers, or promises or offers to give or confer, any property or benefit of any kind to or on the member or any other person is guilty of an offence. [See : Gerard Carney - Conflict of Interest : A Commonwealth Study of Members of Parliament.p. 124]. CANADA : In the case of R.V Bunting, (1984-5) 7 Ontario Reports 524, the defendants had moved for quashing of an indictment for conspiracy to bring about a change in the Government of Province of Ontario by bribing members of the Legislature so vote against the Government. It was argued that bribery of a member of Parliament is a matter concerning Parlia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be questioned in any other place . In 1853 the Congress, by statute, declared a member liable to indictment as for a high crime and misdemeanour in any court of the United States for accepting compensation intended to influence a vote or decision on any question brought before him in his official capacity. In 1862 the Congress enacted another statute to penalise legislators who received money for votes or influence in any matter pending before Congress and in 1864 Conflict of Interest statutes barred Congressmen from receiving compensation for their services before any agency. The Conflict of Interest Statutes were revised in 1962 and are contained in 18 U.S.C.(1964). [See : Note, The Bribed Congressmen s Immunity from Prosecution, (1965-66) 75 Yale L.J. 335, at p. 341]. A distinction is, however, made between the conduct of a Member connected with the proceedings of the House and his conduct not in the House but in connection with other activities as a Member of the Congress. The speech and debate clause does not give any protection in respect of conduct that is in no sense related to due functioning of the legislative powers . [See : United Stated v. Johnson, 15 L Ed 2d 681 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision on postage rate legislation which had been pending before him in his official capacity. Brewster moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was immune from prosecution for any alleged act of bribery because of the Speech or Debate Clause. The District Court accepted the said contention and dismissed the counts of the indictment which applied to Brewster. The said judgment of the District Court was reversed by the US Supreme Court and the matter was remanded. Burger CJ., who delivered the opinion of the Court on behalf of six Judges, held that the Speech or Debate Clause protects the members of Congress from inquiry into legislative acts or into the motivation for their actual performance of legislative acts and it does not protect them from other activities they undertake that are political, rather than legislative, in nature and that taking a bribe for the purpose of having one s official conduct influenced is not part of any legislative process or function and the Speech or Debate Clause did not prevent indictment and prosecution of Brewster for accepting bribes. Brennan and White JJ. (joined by Douglas J.) disssented. The Court construed the Speech or Debate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... member , H.G. Mudgal, in connection with some of his dealings with a business association which included canvassing support and making propaganda in Parliament on certain problems on behalf of that association in return for alleged financial and other business advantages. A ad hoc Committee of the House was appointed to consider whether the conduct of the member concerned was derogatory to the dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standards which Parliament is entitled to expect from members. The Committee found the member guilty of receiving monetary benefits for putting questions in Parliament, moving amendments to the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Bill and urging interviews with the Ministers, etc. and it held that the conduct of H.G. Mudgal was derogatory tot he dignity of the House and inconsistent with the standards which Parliament was entitled to expect of its members. The Committee recommended the expulsion of the member from the House. While the said report was being considered by the House, the member, after participating in the debate, submitted his resignation from the membership of the House. In the resolution the House accepted the findings of the Committe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the commencement of this Constitution. (4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2), and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of the Parliament. By Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 clause (3) was replaced but he following clause :- (3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, an d until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before coming into force of Section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. Clause (1) secures freedom of speech in Parliament to its members. The said freedom is subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mons in the United Kingdom and of its members and committees at the commencement of the Constitution. This part of the provision was on the same lines as the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Australian Constitution an d Section 18 of the Canadian Constitution. Clause (3), as substituted by the Forty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution, does not make any change in the content and it only seeks to omit future reference tot he house of Commons of Parliament in the United Kingdom while preserving the position as it stood on the date of coming into force of the said amendment. Clause (4) of Article 105 makes the privileges and immunities secured under Clauses (1) and (3) applicable to persons who by virtue of the Constitution have the right to speak otherwise to take part in the proceedings of a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to Members of Parliament. Shri P.P. Rao, Shri D.D. Thakur and Shri Kapil Sibal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, have submitted that having regard tot he purpose underlying the grant of immunity under clause (2) of Article 105, namely, to secure full freedom for a Member of Parliament whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ston and the ruling of Buckley J. in R.V. Currie Ors. Before we proceed to consider these submissions in the light of the provisions contained in clause (2) of Article 105, we may refer to the decision in Ex parte Wason and the other decision in which it has been considered. In Ex parte Wason information had been laid by Wason before the Magistrate wherein it was stated that the had given Eari Russell a petition to be presented in the House of Lords wherein the Lord Chief Baron was charged with wilful and deliberate falsehood and the object of the petition was that the Lord Chief Baron might be removed from his office by an address of both House of Parliament and that Eari Russell, Lord Chelmsford and the Lord Chief Baron conspired together to prevent the course of justice by agreeing to make statements which they knew to be untrue and that Eari Russell, Lord Chelmsford and the Lord Chief Baron agreed to deceive the House of Lords by stating that the charge of faleshood contained in the petition against the Lord Chief Baron was unfounded and false whereas they knew it to be true. The magistrate refused to take applicant s recognizance on the ground that no indictable offence w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of either House cannot be inquired into by criminal proceedings with respect to anything they may do or say in the House. [p. 577] The observations if Cockburn CJ., with whom Blackburn J. has concurred, show that the substance of the information laid by Wason was that the alleged conspiracy was to make false statements and that such statements were made in the House of Lords and that the said statements had been made the foundation of the criminal proceeding. Though in the judgment there is no reference to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights but the tenor of the abovequoted observations of the learned Judges leave no doubt that the judgment was based on that Article. It has been so understood in later judgments. [See : R.V. Caurrie Ors.]. Reliance has been placed by Shri Rao on the observations of Lush J. that the motives or intentions of members of either House cannot be inquired into by criminal proceedings with respect to anything they may do or say in the House . In Johnson, while dealing with the contention urged on behalf of the Government that the Speech or Debate Clause was meant to prevent only prosecutions based on the content of speech, such as libel actions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Congress in relation to the business before it. In sum, the Speech or Debate Clause prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the motivation for those acts. [pp. 517, 518] After pointing out that the privileges in England is by no means free form grave abuses by legislators, Burger CJ. has observed :- The authors of our Constitution were well aware of the history of both the need for the privilege and the abuses that could flow from the sweeping safeguards. In order to preserve other values, they wrote the privilege so that it tolerated and protects behaviour on the part of Members not tolerated and protected when done by other citizens, but the shield does not extend beyond what is necessary to preserve the integrity of the legislative process. [p. 521] The learned Chief Justice took note of the fact that Congress is ill-equipped to investigate, try, and punish its Members for a wide range of behaviour that is lossely and incidentally related to the legislative process and said :- In this sense, the English analogy on which the dissents place much emphasis, and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by illegal means because there were no illegal means used or to be used. The learned Chief Justice has, however, observed :- But if these three persons had agreed that the two members of the House of Lords should make these false statements, or vote in any particular manner, in consideration of a bribe paid or to be paid to them, that would have been a conspiracy to do an act, not necessarily illegal perhaps, but to do the act by illegal means, bribery being an offence against the law; and the offence of conspiracy would have been complete by reason of the illegal mans by which the act was to be effected. That offence could have been inquired into by the Court, because the inquiry into all that was done would have been of matters outside of the House of Lords, and there could therefore be no violation of, or encroachment in any respect upon, the lex parliament . [p. 554] In R. V. Currie Ors. Buckley J. has referred to the observations of Wilson CJ. in Bunting and has ruled that the reasoning in Ex parte Wason would not apply to alleged bribery for the proof of which no reference to goings on in Parliament would be necessary. in We may now examine whether the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finally, Hunt J. based himself on a narrow construction of art 9, derived from the historical context in which it was originally enacted. He correctly identified the mischief sought to be remedied in 1688 as being, inter alia, the assertion by the King s courts of a rights to hold a member of Parliament criminally or legally liable for what he had done or said in Parliament. From this he deduced the principle that art 9 only applies to cases in which a court is being asked to expose the maker of the statement to legal liability for what he has said in Parliament. This view discounts the basic concept underlying art 9 viz. the need to ensure so far as possible that a member of the legislature and witnesses before committees of the House can speak freely without fear that what they say will later be held against them in the courts. The important public interest protected by such privilege is to ensure that the member or witness at the time he speaks is not inhibited from stating fully and freely what he has to say. If there were any exceptions which permitted his statement to be questioned subsequently, at the time when he speaks in Parliament he would not know whether or not there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Article 105(2) will, however, depend on the interpretation of the provisions of Article 105(2). As indicated earlier, Article 105(2) is in two parts. In these appeals we are required to consider the first part which provides that no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof. The immunity that has been conferred by this provision is : (i) only on the Member of Parliament, (ii) with regard to liability in any proceedings in any court, which would include civil as well as criminal proceedings, (iii) in respect of anything said or any vote given by such Member, (iv) in Parliament of in any committee thereof. Shri Rao has submitted that having regard to the object underlying the provision, viz., to secure the freedom of speech in Parliament to the members, the immunity granted under clause (2) must be construed in a wide sense and just as the expression anything was construed in Tej Kiran Jain Ors v. N. Sanjiva Reedy Ors., 1971 (1) SCR 612, as a word of widest import, the expression in respect of must also be given a wide meaning so as to comprehend an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the business of Parliament and not to something which was irrelevant. The said contention was rejected by the Court. It was observed :- The article confers immunity inter alia in respect of anything said ....... in Parliament . The word anything is of the widest import and is equivalent to everything . The only limitation arises from the words in Parliament which means during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of the business of Parliament. We are concerned only with speeches in Lok Sabha. Once it was proved that Parliament was sitting and its business was being transacted, anything said during the course of that business was immune from proceeding in any court. This immunity is not only compete but is as it should be. It is of the essence of parliamentary system of Government that people s representatives should be free to express themselves without fear of legal consequences. What they say is only subject to the discipline of the rules of Parliament, the good sense of the members and the control of proceedings by the Speaker. The courts have no say in the matter and should really have none. [p. 615] These observations in Tej Kiran Jain emphasise the ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Privileges do not provide an investigative machinery comparable to that of a police investigation. [para 310] The expression in respect of has to be construed in this perspective. The cases cited by Shri Rao do show that this expression has been construed as having a wider meaning to convey some connection or relation in between the two subject matters to which the words refer . But as laid down by this Court in The State of Madras v. M/s Swastik Tabacco Factory, Vendarayam (supra) the expression has received a wide interpretation, having regard to the object of the provisions and the setting in which the said words appeared . The expression in respect of in Article 105(2) has, therefore, to be construed keeping in view the object of Article 105(2) and the setting in which the expression appears in that provision. As mentioned earlier, the object of the immunity conferred under Article 105(2) is to ensure the independence of the individual legislators. Such independence is necessary for healthy functioning of the system of parliamentary democracy adopted in the Constitution. Parliamentary democracy is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. An interpretation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause such acceptance of illegal gratification has a nexus or connection with such speaking or giving of vote by that Member. If the construction placed by Shri Rao on the expression in respect of is adopted, a Member would be liable to be prosecuted on a charge of bribery if he accepts bribe for not speaking or for not giving his vote on a matter under consideration before the House but he would enjoy immunity from prosecution for such a charge if he accepts bribe for speaking or giving his vote in Parliament in a particular manner and he speaks or gives his vote in Parliament in that manner. It is difficult to conceive that the framers of the Constitution intended to make such a distinction in the matter of grant of immunity between a Member of Parliament who receives bribe for speaking or giving his vote in Parliament in a particular manner and speaks or gives his vote in that manner and a Member of Parliament who receives bribe for not speaking or not giving his vote on a particular matter coming up before the House and does not speak or give his vote as per the denying such immunity to the latter. Such an anamolous situation would be avoided if the words in respect of in Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any other provision of the law, immunity has been conferred on him from any action in any court by this clause. [p. 441] With regard to liability arising from giving of vote in the House an illustration is furnished by the decision of the US Supreme Court in Kilbourn v. Thompson, 26. L.Ed. 377. In the case one Hallet Kilbourn was found guilty of contempt of the House of Representatives and was ordered to be detained in custody under a resolution passed by that House. He brought an action in trespass for false imprisonment against the members of the House who had voted in favour of the resolution. The action was held to be not maintainable against the members in view of the immunity conferred by the Speech or Debate Clause in the US Constitution. The construction placed by on the expression in respect of in Article 105(2) raises the question : Is the liability to be prosecuted arising from acceptance of bribe by a Member of Parliament for the purpose of speaking or giving his vote in Parliament in a particular manner on a matter pending considerations before the House an independent liability which cannot be said to arise out of anything said or any vote given by the Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the making of the speech or giving of vote by the Member and the said liability cannot, therefore, be regarded as a liability in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the protection granted under Article 105(2) cannot be invoked by any of the appellants to claim immunity from prosecution on the substantive charge in respect of the offences punishable under Section 7, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 12 of the 1988 Act as well as the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act. Shri P.P. Rao has also invoked the privileges and immunities available to Members of Parliament under clause (3) of Article 105. It has been urged that since no law has been made by Parliament defining the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, the powers, privileges and immunities enjoyed by Members of Parliament in India are the same as those enjoyed by the Members of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the commencement of the Constitution on January 26, 1950. In order to show that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ude; and so, in every case where a power is claimed, it is necessary to enquire whether it was an existing power at the relevant time. It must also appear that the said power was not only claimed by the House of Commons, but if a particular power which is claimed by the House was claimed by the House of Commons but was not recognised by the English courts, it would still be upheld that under the latter part of clause (3) only on the ground that it was in fact claimed by the House of Commons. In other words, the inquiry which is prescribed by this clause is : is the power in questions shown or proved to have subsisted in the House of Commons at the relevant time. [pp. 442, 443] [emphasis supplied] The learned Attorney General has submitted that till the decision in R.V. Currie Ors. the position in England was that acceptance of bribe by a Member of Parliament was not being treated as an offence at common law, the question whether a Member of Parliament enjoys an immunity from prosecution in a criminal court on a charge of bribery never came up before the English courts and, therefore, it cannot be said that on January 26, 1950 the members of the House of Commons in t he United ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber, the Members of the House of Commons, on January 26. 1950, were enjoying a privilege that in respect of conduct involving acceptance of bribe in connection with the business of Parliament, they could only be punished for breach of privilege of the House and they could not be prosecuted in a court of law. Clause (3) of Article 105 of the Constitution cannot, therefore, be invoked by the appellants to claim immunity from prosecution in respect of the charge levelled against them. Before we conclude on this aspect relating to the claim for immunity from prosecution, we would deal with the contention urged by Shri D.D. Thakur wherein he has laid emphasis on the practical political realities. The submission of Shri Thakur is that during the course of the election campaign a candidate receives financial contributions and also makes promises to the electorate and that if the immunity under Article 105(2) is not available he would be liable to be prosecuted if, after being elected as member of Parliament, he speaks or gives his vote in Parliament in fulfilment of those promises. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the dissenting judgment of White J. in Brewster wherein he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lic Servant We may now come to the question whether a Member of Parliament is a public servant for the purposes of the 1988 Act. Prior tot he enactment of the 1988 Act the law relating to prevention of corruption was governed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act ]. In Section 2 of the 1947 Act it was provided that for the purposes of the said Act public servant means a public servant as defined in Section 21 IPC. Section 21 IPC provided as follows : 21. Public Servant .- The words public servant denote a person falling under any of the discriptions hereinafter following, namely: First. - [Repealed by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950.] Second.- Every Commissioned Officer in the Military, Naval or Air Forces of India; Third.- Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions; Fourth.- Every officer of a Court of Justice (including a liquidator, receiver of commissioner) whose duty it is, as such officer, to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, or to make , authenticate, or keep any document, or to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1984 (2) SCR 495, this Court construed the provisions of Section 21 IPC in order to determine whether a Member of the Legislative Assembly could be held to be a public servant for the purpose of the 1947 Act. The said question was considered in the light of clauses (3), (7) and (12)(a) of Section 21 IPC. It was pointed out that Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom are not covered by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916 and the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889. The Court has also referred to the Bill called the Legislative Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1925 introduced in 1925 to give effect to the recommendations of the Reforms Enquiry Committee (known as Mudiman Committee) which sought to fill in the lacuna in the existing law and to provide for punishment of corrupt practices by or relating to members of Legislative Bodies constituted under the Government of India Act, 1919, and has taken note that the said Bill was snot enacted into law. The Court has also referred to the Report of the Committee, known as the Santhanam Committee, appointed by the Government of India to suggest changes which would ensure speedy trial of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a member of the Legislative Assembly did not fall within the ambit of the said clauses. In the 1988 Act the expression public servant has been defined in Section 2(c) which reas as follows :- 2(c) public servant means - (i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty; (ii) any person int he service or pay of a local authority; (iii)andy person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); iv) any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions; (v) any person authorise by a court of justice ot perform any duty, in connection with the administration of justice, including a liquidator, receiver of commissioner appointed by such court; (vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by a ocurt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... includes a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); The clause relevant for our purpose is clause (viii) whereunder any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty is to be treated as a public servant under the 1988 Act. The said clause postulates that the person must (i) hold an office and (ii) by virtue of that office (iii) he must be authorised or requried to perform (iv) a public duty. On behalf of the appellants it has been urged that a Member of Parliament does not fall within the amibit of this clause because (1) he does not hold an office; and (2) he is not authorised or requried to perform any public duty by virtue of his office. We will first examine the question whether a Member of Parliament holds an office. The word office is normally understood to mean a position to which certain duties are attached, esp. a place of trust, authority or service under constituted authority . [See : Oxford Shorter English Dicikonary, 3rd Ed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted or elected to exercise some function pertaining to public life. Clearly amember of Parliament is a public officer in a very real sense , for he has, in the words of Willams J. in Faulkner V. Upper Boddingtion Overseers, duties to perform which would constitute in law ian office . [p. 402] In Habibullah Khan v. State of Orissa, 1993 Cr. L.J. 3604, the Orissa Hihg Court has held that a Member of the Legislatvie Assembly holds an office and performs a public duty. The learned Judges have examined the matter keeping in view the meaning given to the expression office by Lord Wright as well as by Lord Atkin in McMillan v. Guest [supra]. Taking into consideration the provisions of Articles 168, 170, 172 and 173 of the Constitution relating to Legislative Assembly of the State, the learned Judge ahve held that the Member of the Legislative Assembly if created by the Constitution and that there is a distinction between the office and the holder of the office. Shri P.P. Rao has, however, pointed out that under the COnstitution a distinction has been made between an 1office and a 1seat and that while the expression office has been used int he COnstitution inrelation to variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Membership of Parliament is an office inasmuch as it is a position carrying certain responsibilities which are of a public character and it has an existence independent of the holder of the office. It must, therefore, be held that the Member of Parliament holds an office . The next question is whether a Member of Parliament is authorised or required to perform any public duty by virtue of his office. As mentioned earlier, in R.S. Navak v. A.R. Antulay this Court has said that though a member of the State Legislature is not performing any public duty either directed by the Government or for the Government but he no doubt performs public duties cast on him by the Constitution and by his electorate and he discharges constitutional obligations for which he is remunerated fees under the Constitution. In the 1988 Act the expression publid duty has been defined in Section 2(b) to mean duty in the dischrge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest . The Form of Oath or Affirmation which is required to be made by a Member of Parliament (as prescribed in Third Schedule to the Constitution) is in these terms :- I, A.B., haing been elected (or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct with fidelity an d with a singlemindedness for the welfare of the community. [p. 400] These duties are of a transcendent nature and involve the greatest responsinbility, for they include the supreme power of moulding the laws to meet the necessities of the people, and the function of vigilantly controlling and faithfully guarding the public finances. [p. 401] We are, therefore, of the view that a Member of Parliament holds an office and by virtue of such office he is required or authorised to perform duties and such duties are in the nature of public duties. A Member of Parliament would, therefore, fall withint he ambit of sub-clause (viii) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the 1988 Act. The learned counsel for the appellants have, however, urged that while enacting the 1988 Act Parliament did not intend to include Member of Parliament and Members of the State Legislatures within the ambit of the Act and that the expression public servant as defined in Section 2(c) of the 1988 Act should be so construed as to exclude Members of Parliament and Members of State Legislatures. The learned counsel ahve placed strong reliance ont eh speeches of Shri P. Chaidambaram, the then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Bill in two situations. ........... A law has to be made by Parliament, We make a law with certain intentions. We use a certain language. In may view and in amy best judgment and on the best advice tht I have, this is how we think anMP or an MLA will be covered. This is all that we can say while we are making a law. We believe that our interpretation will be accepted by the courts. If you find fault with our interpretation tell use where we should improve the bill, tell us how we should imporve the language. A law is a matter of interpretation. We are acting according to the legal advice availabel to us. A question was asked about the Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly. Madam, under the law decleared by the Supreme Court, a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly per se is not a public servant. But there can be a number of situations where an MP or an MLA holds another office and discharges other duties which will being him under this Bill. If he holds another office in a cooperative society, if he holds another office in a public institution or if he discharges certain duties which will come under the definition of public du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id :- We often say that we are looking for the intention of Parliament, but that is not quite accurate. We are seeking the meaning of the words whihc Parliament used. We are seeking not what Parliament meant but the true meaning of what they said. The questions which give rise to debate are rerely those which later have to be decided by the courts. One might take the views of the promoters of a Bill as an indication of the intention of Parliament but any view the promoters may have had about questions which later come before the court will not often appear in Hansard and often those questions have neve occurred to t he promoters. At best we might get material from which a more or less dubious inference moght be drawn as to what the promoters inmtended or would have intended if they had though about the matter, and it would, I think, gfenerally be dangerous to attach weight to what some other members of either House may have said [pp. 613-615] The decision in Pepper v. Hart makes an advance. In that case Lord Browne- Wilkisnon, who delivered the main judgment, has said :- .........In my judgment, subject to the questions of the privileges of the House of Commons, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther hand in Snajeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 1983 (1) SCR 1000, this court has laid down :- No one may speak for the Parliament and Parliament is never http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 51 of 62 before the Court. After Parliament has said what it intends to say, only the Court may say what the Parliament meant to say. None else. Once a statute leaves Parliament House, the Court s is the only authentic voice which may echo (interpret) the Parliament. This the court will do with reference to the language of the statute and other permissible aids. [p. 1029] It would thus be seen that as per the decisions of this Courtt the statement of the Minister who had moved the Bill in Parliament can be looked at to a scertain mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation and the object and purpose for which the legislation is enacted. The statement of the Minister who had moved the Bill in Parliament is not taken into account for the purpose of interpreting the provisons of the enactment. The decision in Pepper v. Hart permits reference to the statement of the minister or other promoter of the Bill as an aid to construction of legislation which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 2(c) in the 1988 Act on the basis of the statement of the Minister so as to exclude Members of Parliament a nd Members of State Legislatures. In our opinion th eowrds used in sub-clause (viii) of Section 2(c) are clear and ambiguous they cannot be out down on the basis of the statement made by the Minister while piloting the Bill in Parliament. Shri D.D. Thakur has invoked the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel and ahs submitted that in view of the statement made by the Minister whiel piloting the Bill in Parliament that Members of Parliament and Members of the State Legislatures do not fall withint he sambit of the definition of public servant the State is estopped from taking a contrary satand and to claim that a Member of Parliament is a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Act. There is no legal basis for this contention. We are concerned with the provisions of a law made by Parliament. There is no estoppel against the statute. Shri Thakur has also invoked the rule of statutory construction that the legislature does not intend to make a substantial alteration in law beyond what it wxplicity declares either in express words or by clear implication and that the genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court to take cognizance would not be applicable and it would be open to the competent court ot take cognizance of the offences mentioned in Section 19(1) would insisting on the requriement of sanction. The submission is that merely because none of the clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 19(1) is applicable to a Member of Parliament, it cannot be said that he is outside the purview of the 1988 Act. The learned Attroney General has also urged, in the alternative, that in view of he provisions contained in Articles 102 and 103 the President can be regarded as the authority competent to remove a Member of Parliamen and, therefore, the can grant the sanction for his prosecution udner Section 19(1)(c) and it cannot be said that since there is no authority who can grant sanction for his prosecution a Member of Parliament is outside the purview of the 1988 Act. The learned Attorney General has also submitted tht many of the appellants had ceased to be members of Parliament on the date of filing of the charge-sheet and that the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of thr 1988 Act as well as the ofence under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs under this Act on any other gorund and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. 4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation.- For the ourposes of this section.- (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requriement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanctionj or a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature. The provisions as regards sanction were earlier contained in Section 6 of the 1947 Act. Sub-section (1) and 2) of Section 19 substantially reproduce the provisions contained in Section 6 of the 1947 Act. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 are in the same terms as clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates that in the case of any other person the sanction would be of the authority competent to remove him from his office. Section 6 is thus all embracing bringing within its fold all the categories of public servants as defined under Section 21 of the IPC. [p. 238] The provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 6(1) of the Act covers certain categories of public servants and the other which means remaining categories are brought within the scope of clause (c). [p. 240] It has been pointed out that Verma J., in his dissenting judgment, has also taken the same view when he said :- Clauses (a), (b) and (c) in subsection (1) of Section 6 exhaustively provide for the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution in case of all the public servants falling within the purview of the Act. Admittedly, such previous sanction is a condition precedent for taking cognizance for an offence punishable under the Act; of a public servant who is prosecuted during his continuance in the office. It follows that the public servant falling within the purview of the Act must invariably fall within one of the three clauses in sub-section (1) of Section 6. It follows that the holde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to sub-clauses (ix) and (xii) of Section 2(c). Sub-section (ix) speaks of a person who is the president, secretary or other officebearer of a registered cooperative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or form any corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (a of 1956) . The President, Secretary and other office bearers of a co-operative society hold office in accordance with the provisions of the relevant statute governing such society and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder. The said statute and the rules and bye-laws may provide for an elected President, Secretary and other office bearers who may be removable by a vote of noconfidence by the body which has elected them. Similarly sub-clause (xii) of Section 2(c) of the 1988 Act talks of a person who is an office=bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o to the President and the member ceases to be a member on the date when he incurred the disqualification. The power conferred under Article 103(1) cannot, therefore, regarded as a power of removal of a Member of Parliament. Similarly, under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution a power has been conferred on the Chairman of the Rajya/ the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to decided the question as to whether a Member of Rajya Sabha/Lok Sabha has become disqualified for being a member on the ground of defection. The said decision of the Chairman of the Rajha Sabha and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha that a Member has incurred disqualification on the ground to defection may result in such Member ceasing to be a Member but it would not mean that the Chairman of the Rajha Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha is the authority competent to remove a Member of Rajya Sabha/Lok Sabha. It is no doubt true that the House in exercise of its power of contempt can pass a resolution for expulsion of a Member who is found guilty of breach of privilege and acceptance of bribe by a Member in connection with the business of the House has the power to remove a Member who is found to have indulged in bribery and corrup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge has construed Section 6 of the 1947 Act, which like Section 193 and 105 to 197 Cr. P.C. was a limitation on the power of the Court to take cognizance and thereby assume jurisdiction over a matter, as a right conferred on a public servant o mean no public servant shall be prosecuted without previous sanction . This aspect has been considered by this Court in S.A. Venkataraman v. The State, (1985) SCR 1037. In that case the appellant, who was a public servant, had been dismissed after departmental enquiry and thereafter he was charged with having committed the offence of criminal misconduct under Section 5(1) of the 1947 Act and he was convicted. No sanction under Section 6 was produced before the trial court. It was contended before this Court that the court could not take cognizance of the offence without there being a proper sanction to prosecute. The said contention was rejected on the view that sanction was not necessary for the prosecution of the appellant as he was not a public servant at the time of taking cognizance of the offence. After referring to the provisions contained in Section 190 Cr. P.C. which confers a general power on a criminal court to take cognizance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no limitation on the power of the court to take cognizance under Section 190 Cr. P.C. of the offences mentioned in Section 19(1) of the 1988 Act. The requirement of sanction under Section 19(1) is intended as a safeguard against criminal prosecution of a public servant on the basis of malicious or frivolous allegations by interested persons. The object underlying the said requirement is not to condone the commission of an offence by a public servant. The inapplicability of the provisions of Section 19(1) to a public servant would only mean that the intended safeguard was not intended to be made available to him. The rigour of the prohibition contained in sub-section (1) is now reduced by sub-section (#) of Section 19 because under clause (a) of sub-section (3) it is provided that no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a ******** confirmation or revision on the ground to absence of, ************* This would show that the rquirement of sanction under sub-section (1) of Section 19 is a matter relating to the procedure and the absence of the sanction does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the court. It must, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts Vol. IX (1954). CC 3447- 48]. In Kihoto Hollophen v. Zachillhu Ors. 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 651, this Court has said : The Speakers/ Chairman hold a pivotal position in the scheme of Parliamentary democracy and are guardians of the rights and privileges of the House. The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha by virtue of the position held by them are entrusted with the task of preserving the independence of the Member of the House. In order that Members of Parliament may not be subjected to criminal prosecution on the basis of frivolous or malicious allegations at the hands of interested persons, the prosecuting agency, before filing a charge-sheet in respect of an offence punishable under Section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the 1988 Act against a Member of Parliament in a criminal court, shall obtain the permission of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the case may be. On the basis of the aforsaid discussion we arrive at the following cunclusion :- 1. A Member of Parliament does not enjoy immunity under Article 105(1) or under Article 105(3) of the Constitution from being prosecuted before a criminal court for an offence involving offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
