SC ruling sheds light on JMM bribery case amid political upheaval during Narasimha Rao’s tenure
In a significant turn of events, the Supreme Court revisited the 1998 judgment pertaining to the bribery case involving former Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MPs. The case, centered on allegations of bribery to maintain Rao’s minority government in 1993, resurfaced as the apex court overruled its previous stance, allowing legislators to face prosecution for accepting bribes related to their parliamentary duties.
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, leading a seven-judge Bench, highlighted the dangers inherent in granting immunity to legislators for accepting bribes, prompting the reconsideration of the previous judgment. The ruling, reached by a 3:2 majority, emphasized the need to uphold transparency and accountability in parliamentary proceedings, despite constitutional provisions granting immunity to legislators for their speech and votes.
The bribery case emerged against the backdrop of political turbulence during Narasimha Rao’s tenure. Following the 1991 Lok Sabha elections, Rao assumed office amidst economic crisis and the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition. The no-confidence motion against his government in 1993, prompted by these challenges, led to allegations of bribery involving JMM MPs.
The complaint, filed by Ravindra Kumar of the Rashtriya Mukti Morcha in 1996, implicated Rao and several Congress colleagues in a conspiracy to secure a majority in Parliament through illicit means. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) subsequently pursued cases against JMM MPs Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi, and Shailendra Mahto, alleging acceptance of bribes to sway the no-confidence motion.
The 1998 Supreme Court judgment, which granted immunity to legislators for their parliamentary actions, drew upon the principles of parliamentary privilege. However, the recent ruling underscores the need to balance constitutional protections with accountability, particularly concerning allegations of corruption and malpractice.
Justice S P Bharucha, in the previous judgment, acknowledged the severity of the alleged offenses while reaffirming the constitutional safeguards afforded to legislators. The latest ruling reflects a nuanced understanding of the Constitution’s provisions, emphasizing the imperative of upholding integrity and transparency in parliamentary proceedings.