Case Analysis On P.V. Narasimha Rao V. State (CBI - SPE), 1998

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T18:41:32.693Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:06:12.074Z

CASE

ANALYSIS

ON P.V. NARASIMHA RAO V. STATE (CBI/SPE), 1998 Mahi Thakur, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad Kishan Pavan Daaga, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

INTRODUCTION

The case of P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), 19981 (popularly known as the JMM bribery case) is a landmark judgment that addresses the complex interplay between parliamentary privilege given to MPs, corruption, and the accountability of public officials in India. There are two very significant questions that have been raised and decided by the supreme court in this casea. Whether by virtue of Articles 105(1) and 105(2), a member of Parliament can claim immunity from prosecution before a criminal court on a charge of bribery in relation to the proceedings in Parliament? b. Whether a member of Parliament is a ‘Public Servant’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? The Narsimha Rao’s government did not enjoy a majority at the centre in the Lok Sabha Election in 1993. Therefore, a vote of no-confidence was moved against the government by the opposition parties.

Furthermore, the case arose from allegations of bribery where members of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) were given large sums of money by the ruling party during a no-confidence motion against former Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao's government in 1993 voted against the motion. Consequently, the no-confidence motion was defeated in the house with 251 for and 265 against. The ruling, which led to a split decision in the Supreme Court (3:2), three opinions were authored in this case- by SC Agarwal (for himself and Dr AS Anand), SP Bharucha (for himself and S Rajendra Babu), and an opinion by GN Ray.

1 P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), 1998 4 SCC 626.

The case controversy was about whether MPs could claim privilege to be immune from prosecution for bribery especially in regard to their legislative work under article 105(1)2 and article 105(2)3 specifically of the Indian Constitution. The two articles which address with the powers, privileges and immunity of the Parliament and the state legislatures are article 105 and article 194 of the Indian Constitution. Article 105(1) deals with freedom and speech in Parliament and Article 105(2) is on immunity of members of Parliament to be sued in any court for anything they say in or vote in Parliament or any committee in Parliament. Article 1944 also provides similar provision with respect to state legislatures. The case also posed a number of questions in as far as whether or not MPs fall under the category of ‘public servants’ as defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19885.

The ruling ensured that the MPs could not be prosecuted for activities that they perform in the capacity of their duties in the parliament such as making speeches as well as voting even if these activities were part of criminal activities such as bribery. The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Barucha6. He took the view and emphasized that Article 105(2) would have to be interpreted broadly so as to protect Members of Parliament against proceedings in Court that relate to or are concerned with or have connection or nexus with anything said or voted by them in Parliament. MPs must be able to exercise their parliamentary functions freely, without fear of legal action. However, doubts about the fairness and correctness of the decision in PV Narasimha Rao have been raised in the case of Sita Soren v. Union of India, 20247 and in several previous judgements as well.

For instance, in Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India8, Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha9 etc. This ruling in Sita Soren case disagreed with and overruled the judgment of the majority given in PV Narasimha Rao case. Moreover, all the judges agreed on the second question mentioned above, that a member of Parliament or a state legislature is a ‘Public Servant’ under section 2©10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 because he holds an office and he is required and authorised to carry out

2 India Const. art. 105(1)

3 India Const. art 105(2)

4 India Const. art. 194

5 Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 49 of 1988, India (1988)

6 The opinion authored by SP Bharucha, J has been referred to as majority judgement hereinafter.

7 Sita Soren v. Union of India, (2024) INSC 161

8 Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1.

9 Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184

10 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, § 2(c), No. 49, Acts of Parliament, 1988 (India).

public duty. Although, he cannot be prosecuted under section 19(1)11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198812 for certain offences without the sanction of the competent authority. In the case of a member of Parliament/State legislature, there exists no such authority capable of removing him13 Furthermore, this research paper delves into the legal battle, examining the significance of Parliamentary privileges, mainly Articles 105(1) and 105(2) of the Indian Constitution, the role of the Supreme Court in deciding the judgement, the concept of the Public Servant under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986, and whether MPs can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court.

CRITICAL

ANALYSIS

Brief facts of P V Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE): The general elections to the tenth Lok Sabha in India occurred in 1991, and after that, the Congress party came out with the largest number of seats. Therefore, it came forward to form the government. India's government was to be represented by the candidature of P. V. Narasimha Rao as the country's Prime Minister. But on 26 July 1993, a no-confidence motion against the government of P. V. Narasimha Rao was moved in the Lok Sabha. To have a working majority, this government required as many as fourteen members to support it. Several members of J. M. M. , including Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi Shailendra Mahto, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, Abhay Pratap Singh, Haji Gulam Mohammed from the Janata Dal voted on the nay of the motion.

On 28 July 1993, the no-confidence motion was dismissed after two days of debate at the parliament14. The R. M. M. had lodged an FIR against P. M. V. Narasimha Rao and a number of M. P. s belonging to J. M. M. and Janta Dal on the grounds of criminal conspiracy of Offering and accepting bribes in order to influence the vote following the defeat that had occurred in the noconfidence clause. A complaint was filed with the Central Bureau of Investigation under section

11 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, § 19(1), No. 49, Acts of Parliament, 1988 (India).

12 Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 49 of 1988, India (1988)

13 Election commission v. Subramaniam Swamy, AIR 1996 SC 1810

14 Chauhan, S., 2016. Legislature

privileges and process. The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (2016), pp.290-306.

120-B of the Indian Penal Code15 and the Prevention of Corrupt Practices Act 198816. The matter was taken into cognisance by a special judge in Delhi, and the accused then approached the higher forum – the High Court. The high court subsequently dismissed this application, and in view of this, an appeal was made to the constitutional division of the Supreme Court17. • Ambit of Article 105 of the Indian Constitution The laws passed in the Indian Constitution, especially Article 10518, grant plenty of powers and privileges to the MPs including freedom of speech in the parliament and under any law any action in respect of anything said or done by him in Parliament session. The landmark case Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy19 established that speech inside Parliament enjoys absolute immunity, reinforcing the broad protections under Article 105(1)20.

Article 105(2)21 extends this protection to votes, with the Supreme Court in P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)22 controversially extending immunity to MPs involved in bribery if their actions were related to parliamentary voting. This decision has been heavily criticized for undermining accountability by shielding criminal acts under parliamentary privilege, as highlighted by H. M. Seervai23. However, judicial precedent has also clarified the limits of Article 10524. In K. Anandan Nambiar v. Chief Secretary, Government of Madras25, the Supreme Court ruled that parliamentary privileges do not extend to actions outside parliamentary proceedings. Similarly, the case of Amarinder Singh v. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha26 reaffirmed that actions unconnected to legitimate parliamentary functions are not protected by privilege. Comparative jurisprudence, such as the U. S. case U.

S. v. Brewster27, supports that legislative immunity should not extend to criminal conduct. Indian scholars, including Upendra Baxi, argue that parliamentary privilege should align with international standards, ensuring

15 Indian Penal Code § 120-B (1860)

16 Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 49 of 1988, India (1988)

17 Yashasvi, M. and Saviprasad, H.R., 1999. JMM Bribery Case

A Review. Student Advoc., 11, p.144.

18 India Const. art. 105

19 Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy, AIR 1970 SC 1573.

20 India Const. art. 105(1)

21 India Const. art. 105(2)

22 P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), 1998 4 SCC 626.

23 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 4th ed.

24 India Const. art. 105

25 K. Anandan Nambiar v. Chief Secretary, Government of Madra, AIR 1966 SC 657

26 Amarinder Singh v. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha, 2010 6 SCC 113

27 U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 1972

protection without allowing abuses like corruption28. Thus, while Article 105 ensures parliamentary independence, its interpretation has faced criticism for potentially undermining legal accountability. • Interpretation of Article 105(2) in P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State: The Majority Judgment In P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)29, the SC dealt with the contours of Article 105(2)30 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the speech and vote of Members of Parliament. The majority decision by Justice S. P. Bharucha held this immunity quite wide and included bribes made regarding parliament functions. This case came up following revelations that some M. P. s were bribed to vote against a no-confidence motion. The key debate was whether these M. P.

s could not be prosecuted under Article 105(2) of the constitution for corrupt conduct since their corrupt acts led to a parliamentary vote. The majority's reasoning was that parliamentary privilege serves to protect the independence and sanctity of legislative functions, insulating them from judicial interference. According to this view, voting—regardless of whether it was influenced by bribery—remained a protected parliamentary function. The judgment underscored the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature, asserting that any judicial inquiry into the motivations behind a parliamentary vote would constitute an overreach into the legislative domain. Justice Bharucha argued that Article 105(2) was designed to ensure that MPs could perform their duties freely, without fear of external scrutiny or legal repercussions, thus preserving the autonomy of Parliament.

31 However, this broad interpretation has been subject to significant criticism. By extending immunity to acts of bribery connected to parliamentary voting, the judgment was seen as potentially undermining the rule of law and accountability. Critics argued that accepting bribes, even if it culminates in a parliamentary vote, constitutes a complete crime that parliamentary privilege should not shield. In international jurisprudence, parliamentary immunity typically

28 Upandra Baxi, Legislative Privileges in India

The Scope of Immunity under Article 105," 1984.

29 P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), 1998 4 SCC 626.

30 India Const. art. 105(2)

31 P.V. Narasimha Rao Case

Bribery vs. Parliamentary Privileges, Compass by Rau IAS, https://compass. rauias. com/current-affairs/p-v-narasimha-rao-case-bribery-vs-parliamentary-privileges/ (last visited Sept. 15, 2024). does not extend to criminal acts like bribery. For instance, in the U. K. , under the Bill of Rights (1689)32, and in the U. S. case of United States v. Brewster (1972)33, it is established that legislative immunity applies only to legitimate parliamentary functions, excluding acts of corruption. 34 The judgment in P. V. Narasimha Rao thus reflects a tension between preserving parliamentary privilege and ensuring accountability for corrupt practices.

While the majority sought to uphold the independence of Parliament, the decision also highlighted the potential risks of extending immunity too far, creating a shield for criminal conduct under the guise of legislative protection • Criticism of the Majority Judgment The majority decision in P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)35 was highly criticised for the over-interpreting of Article 105(2)36 in terms of providing protection to the accused MPs regarding bribery charged in relation to the voting in the parliament. Legal experts stated that the verdict was perilous, as it precluded MPs from criminal prosecution for corruption, thereby eroding the rule of law. A constitutional expert H. M.

Seervai also pointed out that with such broad interpretation of parliamentary privilege, it is possible to undermine the democratic rule of law since the MPs are given privileges which enables them to go scot-free 37. The dissenting opinion by Justice S. C. Agrawal emphasized that bribery is a complete offense, independent of parliamentary functions, and should not be shielded by immunity. This view aligns with international case law, where courts have consistently ruled that legislative privilege cannot protect criminal conduct. In United States v. Brewster (1972)38 and R v. Currie (1992)39, both the U. S. and UK courts held that parliamentary immunity does not extend to acts of bribery. Critics further argued that the judgment blurred the lines between parliamentary privilege and

32 Bill of Rights 1689, 1 W. & M., Sess. 2, c. 2 (Eng.)

33 United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972)

34 P.V. Narasimha Rao Case [(1998) 4 SCC 626], Black n’ White Journal,

https://bnwjournal.com/2020/06/24/analysis-p-v-narasimha-rao-case-1998-4-scc-626/ (last visited Sept. 15, 2024).

35 P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), 1998 4 SCC 626.

36 India Const. art. 105(2)

37 Constitutional Law of India, Seervai, 4th ed.

38 United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972)

39 R v. Currie, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1234

criminal behavior, weakening accountability. K. C. Ghosh, in The Law of Parliamentary Privileges in India, noted that shielding MPs from prosecution for bribery damages public trust in democratic institutions and erodes the integrity of the legislative process40. • Dissenting Opinion: A Restrained Interpretation of Immunity This dissenting opinion was provided by two Judges, Justices S C Agarwal and A S Anand and it was much less radical in the scope it was giving to parliamentary immunity than the majority’s opinion. The dissent opined that as per the Article 105(2)41, it is immunity to M. P. s against lawful proceedings for their votes and spoken words in Parliament but does not cover criminal acts which include bribery.

The dissident justices stated parliamentary privilege to be meant for parliament’s smooth functioning not to make it a license to commit any illegality in the course of its duties. The dissent highlighted that the parallel should be drawn strictly between the permissible activities of the Parliament and the unlawful actions. That was why it claimed that immunity for bribery was the negation of democracy as it meant that MPs could actually commit unlawful acts with absolute impunity. The dissenting justices also noted that the accountability of the hon members as lawmakers is key to the integrity of Parliament, and that the general public will lose confidence in the lawmakers if they cannot be prosecuted for bribery, for instance.

In this regard and in opposition to this view, the dissent relied on the provisions of Article 1442 of the Indian Constitution which affirms equal protection of the law. According to them, this is a principle betokening that the majority’s construction of the provision unfooted Article 105 (2) because it cessioned a special category of those protected from the legal repercussions of their actions. The dissent also touched on the rule of law stressing that parliaments privilege cannot be a cover for criminal activities. • Comparison with International Jurisprudence The judgment in the case of P. V Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)43 dealt with the parliamentary privilege which has been granted to legislators under Art 105 of the Indian

40 K.C. Ghosh, The Law of Parliamentary Privileges in India.

41 India Const. art. 105(2)

42 India Const. art. 14

43 P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), 1998 4 SCC 626.

Constitution. Parliamentary privileges is one of the most deciphered issues in international jurisprudence and it has been heavily discusses around the globe. In United States for instance, in the case of United States v. Brewster,44 the Supreme Court was of the said nation that the Speech or Debate Clause protects the legislative conduct but it does not extend to bribery. Likewise, the case of United States v Gravel45 pointed out that the legislative privilege included actions directly related to the legislative duties. However, legislative privilege does not shield unlawful conduct of legislators beyond the legislative duties. Further, in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, in the case of R v. Chaytor46, the UK Supreme Court held that parliamentary privilege does not extend to criminal conduct, such as false accounting.

This decision reinforced earlier views of the court in Bradlaugh v. Gosset47, which held that courts could scrutinise criminal actions within Parliament's internal proceedings. Additionally, The European Court of Human Rights in A v. The United Kingdom48 further underscored the need to balance parliamentary privilege with the right to a fair trial. International principles like the United Nations Convention against Corruption (U. N. C. A. C. ) emphasize accountability, suggesting that immunity should not obstruct justice. The Article 30 of U. N. C. A. C. 49 is known to advocate for measures ensuring that legislative immunity does not shield public officials from prosecution for criminal acts.

In line with these principles, P V Narasimha Rao asserted that parliamentary privilege under Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution does not protect MPs from prosecution for criminal conduct such as bribery. The same applies in other jurisdictions that include Canada and Australia among others. In Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid50, it has been declared that the privilege of parliament is qualified and does not extend to criminal law and similarly, in the case of Egan v. Willis51, it has also been held that privilege claimed by the parliament is restrained and does not cover crime. These cases reveal that the world over, although legislative immunities are needed for

44 U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972).

45 Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972).

46 R v. Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52.

47 Bradlaugh v. Gosset (1884) 12 QBD 271.

48 A v. United Kingdom, App. No. 35373/97 (2002).

49 United Nations Convention against Corruption, art. 30.

50 Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, 2005 SCC 30.

51 Egan v. Willis (1998) 195 CLR 424.

the running of the Parliament, they should not cover corruption52 • Relation with Indian jurisprudence The P. V. Narasimha Rao vs. State (CBI/SPE) 1998 is one of the most important constitutional cases that defined Indian law concerning the parliamentary privileges vesting under Article

10553 of the Constitution. This case relates with a host of other rulings on legislative immunity

as well as parliamentary immunity in an effort to define the constitution law on parliamentary freedom and responsibility. It becomes imperative to understand the precedents for this case as well as subsequent judgements. A key precedent for the Narasimha Rao judgment is Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy54, which held that freedom of speech in Parliament is absolute and MPs cannot be held liable for statements made in the course of parliamentary debates. This interpretation was expanded in Narasimha Rao, where the majority extended immunity to MPs accepting bribes in connection with their parliamentary votes, sparking controversy and criticism for potentially shielding corruption. The Tej Kiran case, while establishing immunity for speech, did not address the broader question of corrupt actions related to parliamentary functions, leading to the more contentious ruling in Narasimha Rao.

Another significant case is K. Anandan Nambiar v. Chief Secretary, Government of Madras55, where the Court limited parliamentary privileges to actions directly connected to parliamentary duties, ruling that acts outside Parliament are not immune from legal scrutiny. While Narasimha Rao focused on whether bribery related to parliamentary voting could be protected, Anandan Nambiar reinforces the principle that legislative immunity is not all-encompassing, and there are boundaries to the privileges granted under Article 105. In Amarinder Singh v. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha56, the Supreme Court reiterated that parliamentary privileges cannot be invoked to protect actions that are illegal or disconnected from parliamentary functions. This ruling echoes the dissent in Narasimha Rao 52 Meyer, Jennifer A. , *Legislative Immunity and the Rule of Law: Comparative Analysis*, 24 Harv.

Int'l L. J. 99 (2003).

53 India Const. art. 105.

54 Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy, AIR 1970 SC 1573.

55 K. Anandan Nambiar v. Chief Secretary, Government of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 657.

56 Amarinder Singh v. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha (2010 6 SCC 113)

by Justice S. C. Agrawal, who argued that bribery is a criminal offense and cannot be protected under parliamentary immunity. • The 2024 Ruling and revisitation of the case by the Supreme Court Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution protects the MPs from any legal proceedings for anything said or voted in Parliament or a parliamentary committee. Article 194(2)57 also provides the same protection to the members of the State Legislative Assemblies. Even in cases of bribery wherein the accused MPs would accept money to influence their speeches or their vote on the floor of the House, this immunity was upheld in the P. V. Narasimha Rao’s case by the Supreme Court through the constitutional provision of Article 10558 cited above by a fivejudge Constitution Bench. In a similar case, in Sita Soren v. Union of India, 201459 Jharkhand High Court stated that the V.

Narasimha Rao judgment but decline immunity to a member of the Legislative Assembly.

In this case, the failings are the charges made on the MLA wherein he was accused of having taken money but did not vote as per the expectation of the person who offered the bribe. The Court opined that since vote was cast against the bribe arrangement there was no causal relation between the bribe received and the vote cast hence, she could not claim for immunity under Article 194(2)60. The Sita Soren judgement has been challenged and a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has been constituted to revisit the earlier P. V. Narasimha Rao ruling and the measure of the protection given to MPs and MLAs from proceedings in Articles 105(2) and 194(2).

The case arises from an election petition in the case of the election of the Council of States wherein accusations of horse trading were made, and the issue surrounding whether it received a bribe but voted differently and whether it negates the immunity granted to the legislators. 61

57 India Const. art. 194(2).

58 India Const. art. 195.

59 Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 302 (India)

60 India Const. art. 194(2).

61 Why Supreme Court is reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao judgment on Parliamentary Immunity, SCC Online, https://www. scconline. com/blog/post/2023/10/04/why-supreme-court-reconsidering-pv-narasimha-raojudgment-on-parliamentary-immunity/ (last visited Sept. 15, 2024) CASE COMMENT In our view, the majority decision in P. V. Narasimha Rao v state case raises some concerning precedents given that it provided immunity to M. P. s accused of bribery connected to their stances in the parliament. The majority ruling, which establishes that the M. P. s will not face legal repercussions, negates the principle of equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Although the decision was intended to preserve the autonomy of the Parliament, it may lead to a lack of trust in democratic institutions and the disintegration of the performance of the legislative system.

Thus, the decision given by the court may encourage M. P. s to engage in corruption since they can avoid criminal prosecution with their help and undermine the important principle of the separation of powers. The minority in the case stressed that the principle of parliamentary privilege is designed to allow Parliament to perform its role rather than sanction unlawful conduct freely. This view aligns with those provided by international legal norms regarding legislative immunity that cannot encompass criminal actions. The dissenting justices stated that if M. P. s are allowed to avoid the law on bribery, the legislative process will be compromised, and the public will lose faith in governance. It is imperative that the rule of law is applied to everyone, and this means that no one, including members of the parliament, should be immune to the law.

The majority ruling, however, undermines this principle by establishing a new category of citizens (Members of Parliament) who can engage in criminal activity with impunity. The judgment of this case is likely to be heard soon by a seven-judge Constitution Bench as the injustices committed in P. V. Narasimha Rao’s case require the Supreme Court to revisit its interpretation of Article 105(2) in accordance with international norms and principles of good governance. A better balance between parliamentary privilege necessary for legislative activities and intolerance of corruption in legislative processes is required to improve the Indian democracy and enforce and uphold the rule of law in the country. SUGGESTIONS In the case of P. V. Narasimha Rao v.

State (CBI/SPE), there were number of alternative strategies that could have been opted to provide better parity between parliamentary immunity and responsibility.

Article 105(2) could have been interpreted in a more restrained manner by the Supreme Court of the country. Instead of generally expanding the immunity to acts of bribery connected with the functions of the Parliament, the Court could have given the opinion that while MPs are immune for the lawful activities in the formation of legislation, this immunity cannot encompass criminal activity such as bribery. There could be an interpretation which could be as restrictive as giving the word ‘immunity’ the meaning which has been given in the case cited above K. Anandan Nambiar v. Chief Secretary, Government of Madras62. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that some privileges of the parliament do not apply to the actions that take place outside the parliamentary session.

This precedent could have been used to restrict the application of Article 105(2) to only genuine parliamentary conduct in a way that would have excluded criminal activities such as bribery. In P. V. Narasimha Rao the dissenting judgment stressed on the requirements of the separation between parliamentary privilege and criminality. This view is in concordance with the ruling in the case of Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007)63 where the Supreme Court of India held that even though the privilege of the parliament shields MPs from some legal proceedings, it does not shield them from criminal prosecution. This case supports the idea that the legitimacy of Parliament depends upon the members’ responsibility and raises a question as to how the same approach could have been taken in P. V. Narasimha Rao.

Therefore, the principles set out in the United States v Brewster case of 197264 and R v Chaytor, 201065 could have been applied to give a more reasonable interoperation of Article 105(2). In both cases, emphasis was made that legislative immunity does not cover criminal actions. Thus, by citing these precedents the Supreme Court could have strengthened the principle of parliamentary privileges while at the same time correcting parliamentarians from using the privilege to cover criminal conducts such as bribery. In Keshav Singh’s Case (1965)66, the court said that it is its duty to interfere with legislative functions where they are unconstitutional. This principle could have been employed in P. V

62 K. Anandan Nambiar v. Chief Sec’y, Gov’t of Madras, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 657

63 Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. (Supp) 1448.

64 United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972).

65 R v Chaytor, [2010] UKSC 52.

66 Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, A.I.R. 1965 All. 349.

Narasimha Rao to say that the judiciary should step in when privileges of parliament are used to conceal corrupt actions. The integration of these other meanings and prior rulings would then have enabled the Supreme Court to uphold the sovereignty of Parliament whilst at the same time, hold the MPs to account for their behaviors. The stability of this balance would ensure that the public is not misled or disillusioned with the democracies and call to order anyone who tries to violate the rule of law in India.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this case is quite significant for the political future of our country, although it has received mixed reactions and acceptance from the public. The court's ruling that a Member of Parliament (MP) is a public servant is considered as a positive step. Additionally, the Chairman and Speaker of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha were given the authority to sanction MPs in cases related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the majority decision, which differentiates between those who accept bribes and those who give them, is viewed as problematic and complex. The same has led to an increase in unethical practices. The case provides a message for the Indian democracy on how the privileges of the parliament cannot be stretched to such a level to allow for corrupt practices. In subsequent case, Sita Soren v.

Union of India, these principles are being re-interpreted in a manner that creates a realization that it is important to protect legislative functions but it should be so done in a manner that does not hinder accountability. In conclusion, it is important to note that through the judgment of P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State, provides us with an insight of how imperative it is to maintain the sovereignty of the parliamentary privilege and at the same time, how the law makers are answerable to the society. Future judicial interpretations need to ensure that they conform to the tenets of democracy as well as international trends with a view of eliminating corrupt practices and restoring the public’s trust in legislative processes.