A CRITIQUE OF P.V.

NARASIMHA RAO VS STATE (THROUGH CBI)

ROUGH DRAFT SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE

TITLED –

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - II

ACADEMIC SESSION – 2017 - 2022

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. ANIRUDH PRASAD

FACULTY OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - II

SUBMITTED BY:

DEEPTANGSHU KAR

B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)

ROLL NO.: 1723

SEMESTER- 5th
 INTRODUCTION:

The facts involved in the Constitution Bench decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (JMM
bribery case) are that in 1991 election to the Lok Sabha, Congress (I) Party remained fourteen
members short of the majority and it formed a minority Government with P.V. Narasimha
Rao as the Prime Minister. The said Government had to face a motion of no-confidence on
28-7-1993 and it somehow managed to defeat the motion by mustering the support of 265
members as against 251. One Ravinder Kumar of the Rashtriya Mukti Morcha filed a
complaint (FIR) with the "CBI" alleging that a criminal conspiracy was hatched pursuant to
which certain members of Parliament belonging to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and certain
others owing allegiance to Janta Dal (Ajit Singh Group) agreed to and did receive bribes from
P.V. Narasimha Rao and others to give votes with a view to defeat the no-confidence motion.
A criminal prosecution was launched against the bribe-giving and bribe-taking Members of
Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code. The Special Judge took cognisance of the offences of bribery and
criminal conspiracy. The persons sought to be charged filed petitions at the High Court for
quashing the criminal proceedings. The High Court at Delhi dismissed the petitions. On
presentation of appeals by way of special leave and upon reference of the case to a
Constitution Bench, the Court formulated for decision these questions:

(i) Does Article 105 of the Constitution confer any immunity on a Member of Parliament
from being prosecuted in a criminal court for an offence involving offer or acceptance of a
bribe?

(ii) Is a Member of Parliament excluded from the ambit of the 1988 Act for the reason that:

(a) he is not a person who can be regarded as "public servant" as defined under
Section 2(c) of the 1988 Act, and

(b) he is not a person comprehended in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1)
of Section 19 and there is no authority to grant sanction for his prosecution under the
1988 Act?

The Constitution Bench by a majority of three to two answered the first question in the
affirmative, except in the case of A-15 Ajit Singh (who, unlike the other co-accused did not
cast his vote on the no-confidence motion), holding that the bribe-taking Members of
Parliament who voted on the no-confidence motion are entitled to immunity from criminal
prosecution for the offences of bribery and criminal conspiracy conferred on them by Article
105(2) of the Constitution. The Court in answer to the second question, ruled that a Member
of Parliament is a "public servant" within Section 2(c) of the 1988 Act. It also concluded that
since there is no authority to grant sanction for prosecution of the offending persons for
certain offences, they cannot be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for such
offences.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

1. What does Parliamentary Privilege mean and entail in the context of Indian polity?
2. What are the facts and ratio in the judgment of the instant case?
3. What was the philosophy behind the provision of article 105(2)?
4. What are the criticisms against this judgment?

HYPOTHESIS:
The researcher will seek to establish that the instant case had set a strong precedent in the
aspect of parliamentary privilege in India.

CHAPTERIZATION:

 INTRODUCTION
 IMMUNITY CONFERRED UNDER ARTICLE 105(2)
 CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF MEMBERS
OF PARLIAMENT IN ANGLO-AMERICAN COUNTRIES
 MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT HAVE NO PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY UNDER
ARTICLE 105 REGARDING OFFENCES AGAINST THE KING OR STATE
 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE INSTANT CASE AND U.S. VS BREWSTER
 CONCLUSION
 BIBLIOGRAPHY