SITA SOREN versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 753 · Decided: 20-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 753 : 2023 INSC 856
753
CASE DETAILS
SITA SOREN
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
A. S. BOPANNA, M M SUNDRESH, J. B. PARDIWALA AND 
MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Issue pertains to whether an MP or MLA can 
claim immunity from criminal prosecution for taking bribery for making a 
speech or voting in a particular manner in the House; and as to correctness 
of PV Narasmiha Rao’s case.
Constitution of India – Art. 194(2) – Powers, privileges, etc, of the 
House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof – 
Issue as regards immunity to an MP or MLA from criminal prosecution 
for taking bribery for making a speech or voting in a particular manner 
in the House in PV Narasmiha Rao’s case – Correctness:
Held: View of the majority in PV Narasmiha Rao’s case has serious 
ramiﬁ cations for the polity and the preservation of probity in public life – In 
view thereof, the correctness of the view of the majority in PV Narasmiha 
Rao to be reconsidered by a larger Bench of seven judges – Reference to 
larger Bench.
Judicial discipline – Correctness of a decision – Reconsideration:
Held: It is settled position of judicial discipline that only a bench of 
coequal strength may express an opinion doubting the correctness of a view 
taken by an earlier Bench of coequal strength – If such a doubt is expressed, 
the matter may be placed before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than 
the one which pronounced the decision in challenge.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
754
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998) 4 SCC 626 : [1998] 2 
SCR 870; State (CBI/SPE) v. PV Narasimha Rao (2001) 9 SCC 249; Centre 
for PIL & Anr. v. Union of India (2000) 9 SCC 393; Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. 
Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388 : [2002] 2 SCR 1006; Pashupati 
Nath Sukul v. Nem Chandra Jain & Ors. (1984) 2 SCC 404 : [1984] 1 SCR 
939; Madhukar Jetly v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 11 SCC 111; Kuldip 
Nayar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 1 : [2006] 5 Suppl. 
SCR 1; Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 : [2018] 11 SCR 
765; Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 1 : [2018] 4 SCR 
1 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 
2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2014 of the High Court of 
Jharkhand at Ranchi in WPCRL No. 128 of 2013.
Appearances:
Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Vivek Singh, Kaushik Laik, Akshay Kaushik, 
Shashank Tiwari, M V Mukunda, Rahul Arya, Pratap Shankar, Ms. Devyani Gupta, 
Ms. Tanvi Anand, Advs. for the Appellant.
R Venkataramani, AGI, Tushar Mehta, SG, K M Nataraj, A.S.G., 
Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv., (AC), Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sr. 
Adv., Ms. Harshika Verma, Dipanshu Krishan, Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, 
Manan Daga, Ms. Samradhi Srivastava, Gaurav Agrawal, Kanu Agarwal, 
Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, K Parmeshwar, Udai Khanna, Akshay Amritanshu, 
Anmol Chandan, Ankur Talwar, Anandh Venkataramani, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi 
Venkataramani, Vinayak Mehrotra, Ms. Mansi Sood, Chitvan Singhal, 
Ms. Sonali Jain, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Kartikey Aggarwal, 
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Dr. Vivek Sharma, Anand Nandan, Aakarsh, 
Ms. Shivangi, Hasan Zubair Waris, Mrs. Mohd. Faiz, Ms. Savita Kumari, Amit 
Pawan, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Ms. Tanya Srivastva, 
Vishal Sinha, Ms. Shivani Vij, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Respondent.
755
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
O R D E R
1. The Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 
17 February 2014 of the High Court of Jharkhand in Writ Petition (Criminal) 
No 128 of 2013. 
2. An election was held on 30 March 2012 for two members of the 
Rajya Sabha representing the State of Jharkhand. The appellant was a 
member of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti 
Morcha. The allegation against the ap pellant is that she accepted a bribe 
from an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favour. However, 
as borne out from the open balloting for the Rajya Sabha seat, she did not 
cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver and instead cast her vote in 
favour of a candidate belonging to her own party. The round of election in 
question was rescinded and a fresh election was held at which the appellant 
voted in favour of the candidate bel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.