P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)
Bench: Constitution Bench — 5 Judges (S.P. Bharucha, S.C. Agrawal, G.N. Ray, A.S. Anand & S. Rajendra Babu JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
In the JMM bribery case (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha), Members of Parliament were alleged to have accepted bribes to vote in a particular way during a no-confidence motion against the P.V. Narasimha Rao government. The question was whether the constitutional immunity under Article 105(2) — which protects MPs from liability for 'anything said or any vote given' in Parliament — also protects them from prosecution for bribery to vote. Put differently: does accepting a bribe to vote in Parliament attract criminal liability, or is the act of voting — and the bribe linked to it — protected by parliamentary immunity?
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Does Article 105(2)'s immunity protect Members of Parliament from prosecution for accepting a bribe to vote in Parliament?
- 2What is the scope of parliamentary immunity under Articles 105(1) and 105(2)?
- 3Are MPs who accepted bribes but did not vote as agreed covered by the immunity?
The Judgment
By a 3:2 majority, the Constitution Bench held that MPs who accepted bribes and voted in Parliament in accordance with the bribe arrangement are protected from criminal prosecution by Article 105(2) immunity — because the vote itself is protected. However, MPs who accepted bribes but did not vote as agreed (i.e., they took the money but voted differently) are not protected by Article 105(2) because their prosecution is not for anything said or done in Parliament but for the bribery transaction itself, which is external to Parliament. The two dissenters held that no MP should be immune from bribery prosecution — parliamentary immunity was never intended to protect corruption.
Key Principles Laid Down
ARTICLE 105(2) IMMUNITY — BROAD SCOPE FOR VOTES CAST: Article 105(2) protects MPs from liability for 'anything said or any vote given' in Parliament. By a majority in Narasimha Rao, this was interpreted to extend to the transaction underlying the vote — including bribery to vote — where the MP actually cast the vote as agreed.
OVERRULED BY LARGER BENCH IN 2024: In Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024), a 7-judge Constitution Bench expressly overruled Narasimha Rao (1998) — holding that Article 105(2) immunity does NOT extend to acts of bribery. Parliamentary immunity protects speech and votes; it does not immunise corruption that precedes or underlies those acts.
DISSENT — PROPHETIC: The dissenting view in Narasimha Rao (1998) — that bribery prosecution should never be immunised by Article 105(2) — was eventually vindicated by the 7-judge bench in Sita Soren (2024), making Narasimha Rao important primarily as the case that was overruled.
MPs WHO TOOK BRIBE BUT VOTED DIFFERENTLY — NOT IMMUNE: Even under the Narasimha Rao majority view, MPs who accepted bribes but did not vote as agreed are not protected by Article 105(2) — the immunity only attaches to what is 'said or voted' in Parliament, not to the bribery transaction alone.
Impact on Indian Law
P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998) was for 26 years the governing authority on parliamentary immunity and bribery. Its controversial majority ruling — that immunity extends to bribed votes — has now been overruled by Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024). Narasimha Rao is now studied as the case that was overruled and as an example of the evolution of constitutional interpretation on parliamentary immunity. The 2024 Sita Soren decision is the current governing law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are MPs immune from bribery prosecution under Article 105(2)?
No — as of 2024. The 7-judge Constitution Bench in Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) expressly overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998) and held that Article 105(2) parliamentary immunity does NOT extend to acts of bribery. The immunity protects speech and votes in Parliament — it does not immunise the corrupt transaction that precedes or underlies those acts.