http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: P.V. NARSIMHA RAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE (CBI/SPE) ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/04/1998

BENCH: G.N. RAY

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 1998 Present:                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Anand                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu Ashok  H.   Desai,  Attorney   General,  T.R.  Andhyarujina, Solicitor General,  P.P. Rao,  Kapil Sibal, Dr. D.D. Thakur, Sr.  Advs.,   Ranjit  Kumar,   Anu   Mohla,   I.C.   Pandey, C.Paramasivam, Ajay  Talesara, Jamshed  Bey, Rakhi  Roy, Ms. Bina Gupta,  Dr. Surat  Singh, Ashok  Mahajan,  P.P.  Singh, Chandrashekar, Girish  Ananthamurthy, B.Y.  Kulkarni,  Navin Prakash, Arun  Bhardwaj, K.C.  Kaushik,  Manish  Sharma,  D. Prakash Reddy,  L. Nageshwara  Rao, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Rajiv Dutta, Akhilesh  Kumar Pandey, Bharat Sangal, R.P. Wadhwani, P.K. Manohar,  P. Parmeswaran,  A.Mariarputham and  Dr. S.C. Jain, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.                      J U D G M E N T S The following Judgments of the Court were delivered: [With Crl.  A. Nos. 1209/97, 1210-1212/97. 1213/97, 1214/97. 1215/97, 1216/97,  1217-18/97,  1219/97,  1220/97,  1221/97, 1222/97, 186/98  (Arising out  of S.L.P.  (Crl. No 2/98) and 187/98 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 366/98)] G.N. RAY, J.      I had the privilege of reading both the judgments - one by my learned brother Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal and the other by learned  brother Mr.  Justice S.P.  Bharucha.   Though  I respectfully concur with the findings of Mr. Justice Agrawal and agree  with the  reasonings for such findings that (1) a member of  Parliament is a public servant under Section 2[c] of the  Prevention of  Corruption Act,  1988 and  (2)  since there is  no authority  competent to  grant sanction for the prosecution of a Member of Parliament under Section 19[1] of the Prevention  of Corruption  Act 1988,  the Court can take cognizance of the offences mentioned in Section 19[1] in the absence of  sanction but  before  filing  a  chargesheet  in respect of  an offence  punishable under Sections 7,10,11,12 and 15  of 1988  Act against  a Member  of Parliament  in  a criminal court,  the prosecuting  agency  shall  obtain  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

permission of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha,  as the  case may  be, I  have not  been able  to persuade myself  to  concur  with  the  reasonings  and  the finding in the judgment of Mr. Justice Agrawal that a member of parliament  does not  enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) or 105(3) of the Constitution from being prosecuted before a criminal court  for an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe  for the  purpose of speaking or giving his vote in Parliament or in any committee thereof.      Article 105  of the  Constitution  deals  with  powers, privileges etc.  of the Houses of Parliament and the members and committees  thereof.   Sub article  (1) of  Article  105 makes it  evident that  subject to  the  provisions  of  the Constitution and  rules and  standing orders  regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.   The provisions  of Sub-article (1) Article 105 indicates in  no uncertain  term that  the freedom of speech guaranteed  under   sub  Article   (1)  of  Article  105  is independent  of  the  freedom  of  speech  guaranteed  under Article 19  of the  Constitution and  such freedom of speech under Article  105 (1)  is not inhibited or circumscribed by the restrictions  under Article  105 (1) is not inhibited or circumscribed by  the restrictions  under Article  19 of the Constitution.   In order  to ensure effective functioning of Parliamentary democracy, there was a felt need that a Member of Parliament  will have  absolute freedom in expressing his views in  the deliberations  made in the door of Parliament. Similarly he  must enjoy full freedom in casting his vote in Parliament.      The protections to be enjoyed by a Member of Parliament as contained  in Sub  Article (2) of Article 105 essentially flows from  the freedom  of  speech  guaranteed  under  Sub- Article (1)  of Article  105.  Both the Sub-articles (1) and (2) compliment  each other  and indicate the true content of freedom of  speech and freedom to exercise the right to vote envisaged  in   Article  105   of  the  Constitution.    The expression "in  respect of" appearing in several articles of the Constitution  and in  some other  legislative provisions has been  noticed in  a number  of decisions  of this Court. The correct  interpretation of the expression "in respect of can not  be  made  under  any  rigid  formula  but  must  be appreciated with  references to  the context in which it has been used and the purpose to be achieved under the provision in question.   The  context  in  which  the  expression  "in respect of"  has been used in sub article (2) of Article 105 and the  purpose for which the freedom of speech and freedom to vote  have been  guaranteed in sub article (2) of Article 105 do  not permit  any restriction  or curtailment  of such right expressly  given under sub article (1) and sub article (2) of Article 105 of the Constitution.  It must, however be made clear  that the  protection under  sub-article  (2)  of Article 105  of the  Constitution must  relate to  the  vote actually given  and speech  actually made in Parliament by a Member of  Parliament.   In any view, the protection against proceedings in  court as  envisaged under Sub-article (2) of Article 105  must necessarily be interpreted broadly and not in a  restricted manner.  Therefore, an action impugned in a court proceeding  which has  a nexus  with the  vote cast or speech made in Parliament must get the protection under sub- article (2)  of Article 105.  Sub-Article (3) of Article 105 provides for  other powers,  privileges and immunities to be enjoyed by  a Member  of Parliament.   The  farmers  of  the Constitution did  not catalogue  such powers, privileges and immunities but  provided in  sub article  (3) of Article 105 that until  such privileges are defined by the Parliament, a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

member of  Parliament will enjoy such powers, privileges and immunities which  had been  recognised to  be existing for a member of  House of  Commons  at  the  commencement  of  the Constitution of  India.   As I  respectfully agree  with the reasonings indicated  in the judgment of the learned brother Mr. Justice  S.P. Bharucha  that in  the facts  of the case, protection under  Article 105(3)  of the Constitution is not attracted but  protection under  Sub article  (2) of Article 105 is  available only  to those  accused, who as Members of Parliament had  cast their  votes in  Parliament, I  refrain from indicating  separate  reasonings  in  support  of  such finding.