Bringing bribe takers to book

THE SPECIAL JUDGE, Mr. Ajit Bharihoke, has done well to ask the CBI to look for possible offences under the anti- corruption law by the three JMM leaders - Mr. Suraj Mandal, Mr. Shibu Soren and Mr. Simon Marandi - from the `disproportionate assets' angle. For, it did seem a cruel distortion of justice that, while the `criminal conspirators and abettors' of the money-for-vote deal struck with some MPs for saving the Narasimha Rao-headed minority Congress(I) Government in 1993 should get punished, the recipients of the tainted money should go free; the court awarded Mr. Rao and his then Home Minister, Mr. Buta Singh, a three-year jail term and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each. One, however, wonders why the judge chose to give the direction to the investigating agency on the day he pronounced the order of `sentence' against Mr. Rao and Mr. Singh and not earlier, when he proclaimed them `guilty'.

Mr. Bharihoke was only seeking to place in perspective the Supreme Court's April 1998 verdict on the scope of `immunity' members of Parliament enjoyed under Article 105(2) when he said the protection was available ``only in relation to those offences, the trial of which would call for an enquiry into the motive'' behind the way the person concerned exercised his/her right to vote. There cannot, certainly, be a blanket immunity to MPs or State legislators vis-a-vis the criminal laws of the land or the special laws as are applicable to `public servants', like the Prevention of Corruption Act, for instance, especially after the apex court's authoritative pronouncement (1998) on this issue. In the case of the JMM trio, the evidence let in about the huge bank deposits they had come into possession during a specific period does warrant an investigation of the type ordered by the court under the anti-corruption law and such a probe could be without reference to the privileged parliamentary vote in question, even if the money-vote nexus happened to be obvious.

The special court's verdict has, predictably, revived a vigorous debate on the rationale and scope of parliamentary immunity particularly in the context of the Supreme Court's April 1998 judgment; it was held that the immunity from proceedings in court

guaranteed under Article 105(2) specifically related to ``anything said or any vote given'' by members and as such no legal action could lie against MPs who had voted allegedly after taking a bribe. What flowed from this is the rather anomalous situation of the `bribe takers' being protected but not the `bribe givers' for the reason that the latter's action had nothing to do with voting in Parliament. It is a well-recognised parliamentary dictum that members must be free to speak fearlessly and vote according to their will uninhibited by external pressure or threat and this indeed is the rationale behind the privileges and immunities guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Accepting a bribe, fee, compensation or reward - by whatever name it is called - to plead or act in a particular way cannot by any stretch of imagination be claimed as part of a member's Constitutional privilege; it would amount to bartering the solemn trust the electorate had reposed in him.

Surely the framers of the Constitution would never have imagined that MPs and MLAs could be so brazen as to indulge in grossly improper and criminally reprehensible actions and seek cover under the `immunity' provision. There may be a case for taking a hard look at the whole range of parliamentary privileges and immunities. On the judicial side, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court which is seized of the matter will have occasion to pronounce its opinion on the issue. But it is primarily for Parliament itself to evolve and work a system by which any malfeasance or misconduct on the part of its members is punished. In fact, the very concept of immunity from proceedings in court is predicated upon the legislature playing the role of a watchdog in relation to the conduct of its members.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : The terrorist twist
Next     : The Vajpayee caravan rolls on