SITA SOREN versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 04-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 30 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 462 : 2024 INSC 161
Sita Soren 
v. 
Union of India
(Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019)
04 March 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, A.S. Bopanna,  
M. M. Sundresh, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha,  
J.B. Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Instant Reference pertains to reconsideration of the correctness 
of the view of the majority judgment in *PV Narasimha Rao’s case 
granting immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature 
who has allegedly engaged in bribery for speaking or casting a vote.
Headnotes
Constitution of India – Arts. 105 and 196 – Powers, privileges 
and immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature, as 
the case may be, and of members and committees – Member of 
Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, if can claim immunity 
from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court – 
Reconsideration of the correctness of the majority view in*PV 
Narasimha Rao’s case which grants immunity from prosecution 
to a member of the legislature who has allegedly engaged in 
bribery for casting a vote or speaking:
Held: Judgment of the majority in *PV Narasimha Rao’s case 
has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life and 
parliamentary democracy – There is a grave danger of this Court 
allowing an error to be perpetuated if decision not reconsidered 
– Thus, said case not concurred with and overruled. [Para 188]
Constitution of India – Arts. 105 and 196 – Powers, privileges 
and immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature, 
and of members and committees – Allegation against the 
member of Legislative Assembly that she accepted bribe from 
an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favour 
in the Rajya Sabha elections, however, in an open ballot, she 
did not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver but 
her own party candidate – Chargesheet against the member – 
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
463
Sita Soren v. Union of India
Petition for quashing of criminal charges, claiming protection 
of Art.194(2), relying on *PV Narasimha Rao’s case that member 
would enjoy immunity from prosecution for accepting bribe 
for speaking or giving their vote in Parliament – Rejected by 
the High Court – Matter before the Supreme Court where the 
two-judge bench referred the matter to three-judge bench, who 
further referred to five-judges bench – Bench of five-judges 
doubted the correctness of *PV Narasimha Rao wherein the 
majority judgment held that the legislator is conferred with 
immunity when they accept bribe for speaking or giving their 
vote in Parliament, whereas minority held that giving bribe 
to influence legislator to vote or speak in Parliament, not 
protected by Arts. 105(2) and 194(2), and referred the matter 
to bench of seven judges:
Held: Interpretation placed on the issue in question in the judgment 
of the majority in *PV Narasimha Rao’s case results in a paradoxical 
outcome – Such an interpretation is contrary to the text and purpose 
of Arts. 105 and 194 – Reconsidering *PV Narasimha Rao’s case 
does not violate the principle of stare decisis – Members of the 
House or indeed the House itself cannot claim privileges which are 
not essentially related to their functioning – Constitution envisions 
probity in public life – Corruption and bribery of members of the 
legislature erode the foundation of the Parliamentary democracy 
– Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege – Delivery of 
result irrelevant to the offence of bribery – Voting for elections to 
the Rajya Sabha falls within the ambit of Art. 194(2) – Thus, said 
case not concurred with and overruled. [Paras D, G, I, 188]
Judicial Precedent – Overruling of the long-settled law in *PV 
Narasimha Rao’s case, if warranted:
Held : Period of time over which the case has held the field is not 
of primary consequence – It is not appropriate for this Court to 
confine itself to a rigid understanding of the doctrine of stare decisis 
– Ability of this Court to reconsider its decisions is necessary for 
the organic development of law and the advancement of justice – If 
this Court is denuded of its power to reconsider its decisions, the 
development of constitutional jurisprudence would virtually come to 
a standstill – Thus, reconsidering *PV Narasimha Rao’s case does 
not violate the principle of stare decisis – *PV Narasimha Rao’s 
case has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public 
life and the functioning of par

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.