Bribery is complete when bribery is accepted: Overruling of 1998 verdict

The Constitution provides certain rights to the elected representatives. Its purpose is the welfare of the people and not the welfare of the representative of the people. A People's Representative should present issues related to the people fearlessly and freely in the House. No citizen can question it in court. If such questioning is allowed, the result will be a constant clash between the legislature and the judiciary. It is with the intention that this should not happen that special protection has been given to the people's representatives in the constitution.

A 1998 ruling by a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court that no legal action can be taken against members of parliament even if they are found to have voted by taking bribes is a proof that any protection or law can be misused over time. That historic mistake has been rectified by a seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court after a quarter of a century. A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud ruled unanimously that the 1998 judgment was against public interest and democracy and ruled that no legal protection could be given to members of parliament who take bribes to vote or speak in the House.

The Constitution provides legal protection only for speaking and voting in the Legislative Assembly and Parliament. At the time of framing the constitution, they did not think that there would be a situation where people's representatives would take bribes in the future. Corruption and bribery later became part of the decay of democracy. India is a country where bribery for any purpose is prohibited. To say that the law applicable to the people can be violated by a representative of the people will not strengthen the foundations of democracy in any way but shake it. The 1998 judgment held that the member was entitled to constitutional protection because the deed for bribery was done within the House. It was this judgment that saved PV Narasimha Rao in the notorious JMM corruption case. The seven-member constitution bench of the Supreme Court has now annulled that verdict, which is against the basic principles of the Constitution.

Laws are created for the welfare and good of people. Any law that has been misused for evil overtime must be corrected. Anyone can make a mistake. Administrators, courts and people are not completely free from error, but society and democracy become more civilized when that error is corrected. A judgment that has closed the door on such wrongdoing, belatedly but now, will no doubt serve to further strengthen democracy and parliamentary institutions.