Case Analysis: P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998)

Supreme Court of India AIR 1998 SC 2120

NAME OF THE CASE	P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State
CITATION	Appeal (crl.) 1207 of 1997
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	April 17, 1998
APPELLANT	P.V. Narasimha Rao
RESPONDENT	State (CBI/SPE)
BENCH /JUDGE	S.C. AGRAWAL & G.N.RAY & A.S. ANAND & S.P. BHARUCHA & S. RAJENDRA BABU
STATUTES INVOLVED	Criminal Procedure Code,1973; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956.
IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ARTICLE	The Constitution of India 1949- Article 105. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Section 2(c).

Overview:

The case of P.V. Narasimha Rao popularly known as the JMM bribery case was an important one in the history of the Indian judiciary as it marked the first time that a former Prime Minister of India was acquitted in a corruption case.

The judgment was delivered on April 17, 1998. The decision of the court in this case was a dicey one and needs to be reconsidered. The verdict was seen as a victory for P.V. Narasimha Rao and his supporters, who had argued that the charges against him were politically motivated and aimed at tarnishing his legacy as one of India’s most transformative Prime Ministers.

Provisions involved:

Article 105 in The Constitution of India 1949[1]

This article seeks to give immunity to the Member of Parliament in respect of anything said within the four walls of the House during the course of proceedings of the House or its Committees. This article implies that MPs are immune from prosecution under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

This article only grants immunity for words said during the proceedings of the House inside the House. Outside the House, an MP is considered as any other citizen and can be prosecuted.

Section 2(c) in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988[2]

This section classifies who may be called a public servant. It lays down XI criteria to qualify to be called a public servant. Persons fulfilling any of the said criteria can be called public servants.

Facts of the case:

During the 10th Lok Sabha election which was held in the year 1991, the Congress party was the leading party and subsequently, it formed the government with P.V. Narasimha Rao as a Prime Minister.
However, everything was going well in the party unless during the monsoon session of Lok Sabha in July 1993 a ‘No Confidence Motion’ was moved against the existing government of P.V. Narasimha Rao.
Now, the party was in minority and could no longer continue to be in power, so the party gave bribes to a few members of JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha) and urged them to vote against the motion.
The party somehow managed to defeat the motion with 251 members voting in favor of the motion and 265 voting against the motion.
After the motion was defeated the party once again came into power.
But on February 28, 1996, a person named Shri Ravindra Kumar of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha filed a complaint with the CBI wherein it was alleged that some members of parliament were bribed during the no-confidence motion in Lok Sabha in July 1993.
The CBI based on information received registered a complaint under Section 13(2), Section 13(1) (d) (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi, and Shallendra Mahto, members of JMM.
In short, a criminal prosecution was launched against the bribe-taking and bribes giving members of the Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
The cognizance was taken by the special Judge Delhi, the person who sought to be charged as aforesaid, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the charge.
The High Court dismissed the petition. Therefore, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India and then referred to a Constitution Bench.

Issues before the court

There were two main issues before the court to be decided;

Whether under Articles 105(1) and 105(2) of the Constitution of India, a member of parliament can claim immunity from prosecution before a criminal court on a charge of bribery concerning the proceeding of the parliament.
Can a member of parliament may be considered a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, of 1988?

Judgment:

The judgment was delivered by a special court in Delhi, India, which found that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against Rao and others. The Five Judge bench split their verdict in the ratio of 3:2; the court has taken judgment based on articles 105(1) and 105(2) in literal interpretation.

The court of law increased the scope of these articles and held that the scope of immunity available to the Member of Parliament is quite wide and is available not only against judicial proceedings but also against all civil actions and criminal proceedings for anything said or any vote given by them in the House of Parliament. The court also noted that the safeguard is available to protect the interest of the MPs and enable them to express themselves freely and fearlessly.

The court further held that based on the literal interpretation of the Articles under question the JMM members who have taken the bribe and voted against the motion are not guilty of corruption. But one member who had taken the bribe but did not vote was held guilty of prosecution.

Considering the second issue the court noted that the member of parliament holds office and discharges public duty and therefore qualifies for Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, the response as to whether a member of parliament can be considered a ‘public servant’ under section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1998 was affirmative. Consequently, a criminal proceeding can be instituted against a Member of Parliament under the said act.

Present Status of the Judgement

The judgement of the present case was controversial and had over the years subjected to a lot of debates. Prime facie the judgment does not look to be a fair one and for this reason, a five-judge bench led by the present Chief Justice of India recommended reconsidering the judgment by a larger bench of 7 judges.

The bench said the judgment of Justice Agarwal states that the offence is complete with the acceptance of the money or agreement to accept money being concluded and is not dependent on the performance of the illegal promise by the receiver. It further added that this aspect had not been dealt with in the judgment of the majority.[3]

Conclusion

“That a Member of Parliament against whom there is a prima facie charge of corruption should be immune from prosecution in the courts of law is to my mind an unacceptable proposition at present. I do not believe it to be the law.”[4] The judgment can be summed up in a single above-mentioned quote.

However, the case was a significant one in the history of the political future of India. Though the judgement received a mixed review from the general public the decision of the court on the point that a member of parliament is a public servant was a positive one. At the same time, the acquittal of P.V. Narasimha Rao cannot be considered a positive one. This judgment is against the dreams and aspirations of the constitution makers and the spirit of the constitution and there is a strong need for it to be reconsidered.

[1] Read Bare Article here; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1251904/

[2] Read Bare Section here; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/519055/

[3] <https://www.deccanherald.com/india/delhi/supreme-court-sets-up-7-judge-to-reconsider-its-1998-verdict-involving-mps-in-narasimha-rao-case-2700849 > accessed December, 2023

[4] Buckley J., in R v. Currie; 1992.

By Vaidehi Sharma, a student of BALLB at Mohanlal Sukhadia University