The end of immunity for MPs and MLAs over bribery
Krishnadas Rajagopal joins us to provide an overview of the JMM bribery case and explains why the Supreme Court has now overruled the 1998 Narsimha Rao judgement.
Audio is streamed directly from the publisher (podtrac.com) as published in their RSS feed. Play Podcasts does not host this file. Rights-holders can request removal through the copyright & takedown page.
Show Notes
Earlier this week, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that MPs and MLAs are not immune to criminal prosecution on bribery charges related to their votes or speech in Parliament or state assemblies.
This judgement overturns an earlier ruling of the Supreme Court in the 1998 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) case. In this case, the majority opinion had held that MPs and MLAs enjoyed immunity from prosecution with regard to how they vote or speak in the House.
Article 105 (2) of the Constitution confers on MPs immunity from prosecution in respect of their speech or voting in Parliament. Article 194 (2) grants the same protection to MLAs. So what prompted the Supreme Court to strip MPs and MLAs of this immunity? What was the original case that set off the chain of events culminating in this judgement? And what are the implications of this verdict? Tune in to find out.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices