Editorial: Making lawmakers accountable

<!–

–>

The SC judgement is a significant step towards curbing the rampant role of money power in horse trading and other malpractices

The highest court of the land has finally done a course correction on the issue of ensuring probity in lawmaking. By unequivocally asserting that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege, the Supreme Court has established that there should be zero tolerance for corruption among lawmakers. A seven-judge constitution bench of the apex court has ruled that MPs and MLAs taking bribes to vote or make a speech in the House are not immune from prosecution. This landmark unanimous verdict overrules the 1998 judgment of the court’s five-judge bench in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) bribery case, whereby lawmakers were granted immunity under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution. These Articles deal with the powers and privileges of members of Parliament and legislative Assemblies. Five JMM MPs had allegedly accepted bribes to help the then Congress government, headed by PV Narasimha Rao, survive a no-confidence motion in 1993. The court has rightly observed that corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian parliamentary democracy, even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi has asserted that the verdict will ensure clean politics and deepen the people’s faith in the system. The earlier verdict in the JMM bribery case had held that lawmakers enjoy immunity from prosecution even if they take money to vote or make a speech in Parliament or a State Legislative Assembly. The apex court has now disagreed with the reasoning of the 1998 verdict and has reiterated the primacy of upholding probity in public life based on principles anchored in constitutional principles of equality.

The corruption and bribery of the members of legislature erode the foundation of Indian parliamentary democracy. The judgment comes close on the heels of the SC annulling the electoral bond scheme, saying it violated the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression as well as the right to information. The scheme, whose avowed aim was to cleanse political funding, drew flak from the outset due to a glaring lack of transparency. It is laudable that the judiciary is making the right interventions to clean up politics. Voters expect their representatives to raise issues of public interest in the House, not sell themselves to the highest bidder. The 1998 ruling was flawed as it had given unscrupulous lawmakers the licence to misuse parliamentary privileges to save their skin. The latest judgement is a significant step towards curbing the rampant role of money power in horse trading and other legislative malpractices. The SC has rightly pointed out that it would be a violation of Article 14 to create a class of public servants, which is afforded extraordinary protection. In the days ahead, the executive and judiciary must ensure upholding the spirit of the verdict: There is a need to create a fearless atmosphere in Parliament and legislatures for the free exchange of ideas.

<!–

–>