P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) – JMM Bribery Case (1998) and the 2024 Supreme Court Review
A step-by-step, classroom-style guide to how the JMM Bribery Case first gave wide immunity to MPs and MLAs, and how a 7-judge bench in 2024 finally removed that shield for bribery and corruption.
Table of Contents
YouTube Case Explainer
Quick Summary
A short, exam-ready overview of the P.V. Narasimha Rao JMM bribery case and the 2024 review.
- In the early 1990s, the minority government of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was accused of paying MPs, including members of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), to defeat a no-confidence motion.
- In 1998, a 5-judge Constitution Bench held by 3:2 majority that if an MP or MLA took a bribe and then actually voted or spoke in the House, they got immunity from criminal trial under Articles 105(2) and 194(2).
- This created a serious problem: a legislator who followed the bargain (took money and voted accordingly) was protected, while a legislator who did not vote as promised could be prosecuted.
- The Sita Soren case brought this confusion back to the Supreme Court. Different benches referred the issue to a larger bench, which finally went to a 7-judge Constitution Bench.
- In 2024, the 7-judge bench unanimously held that parliamentary or legislative privileges do not cover bribery. MPs and MLAs can be prosecuted if they accept money for any vote or speech, and the contrary part of the 1998 judgment was overruled.
Issues
Core questions the Court had to answer in the Narasimha Rao case and its 2024 review.
- Immunity and bribery: Does Article 105(2) for MPs and Article 194(2) for MLAs protect them from criminal prosecution if their vote or speech in the House is connected to a bribe?
- Scope of “anything said or any vote given”: Does this phrase cover only genuine legislative actions, or also the corrupt bargain that happens outside the House?
- Role of parliamentary privilege: Are privileges meant to secure honest debate, or can they also be used as a shield for corruption and illegal gratification?
- Validity of the 1998 decision: Was the earlier 3:2 majority in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) correct in giving immunity to MPs and MLAs who took a bribe and then voted accordingly?
- Consistency with anti-corruption law: Can constitutional privileges be interpreted in a way that defeats the object of laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Rules & Legal Provisions
Main constitutional and statutory provisions involved in the case.
- Article 105(2) – Parliament: Grants MPs immunity in respect of “anything said, or any vote given” in Parliament or its committees. The debate was whether this also protects the act of taking a bribe for such speech or vote.
- Article 194(2) – State Legislatures: Provides similar immunity to MLAs in State Legislatures. The same question arose for them as for MPs under Article 105(2).
- Parliamentary and Legislative Privileges: These privileges exist so that members can speak, debate and vote freely without fear of outside pressure, not to protect personal illegal gain.
- Prevention of Corruption Law (general principle): Accepting any illegal gratification for doing or not doing an official act amounts to bribery and can lead to criminal prosecution.
- Constitution Bench practice: Because the issue affected the working of Parliament, State Legislatures and democratic accountability, it was repeatedly placed before larger benches, ending with a 7-judge bench in 2024.
Facts – Timeline of Events
A simple timeline to follow the political and legal journey from the early 1990s to the 2024 verdict.
1991 – 10th Lok Sabha Elections
Congress emerges as the single largest party but without full majority. P.V. Narasimha Rao becomes Prime Minister of a minority government.
No-Confidence Motion and Alleged Bribes
A no-confidence motion is moved in the Lok Sabha against the Rao government. Allegations later arise that several MPs, especially from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and some from other parties, were paid large sums of money to vote in favour of the government.
Motion Defeated, CBI Investigation
The government survives the motion. Complaints are filed and the CBI investigates the alleged bribery and conspiracy. It is claimed that “several lakhs of rupees” were paid to MPs to secure their support.
1998 – 5-Judge Constitution Bench Decision
A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by 3:2 majority, holds that MPs and MLAs are immune from criminal prosecution for any vote or speech inside the House, even when it is the result of a bribe. This is based on Articles 105(2) and 194(2).
2012 – Sita Soren Case
During a Rajya Sabha election in Jharkhand, MLA Sita Soren is accused of taking a bribe from an independent candidate but finally voting for her party candidate. She claims immunity under Article 194(2) relying on the Narasimha Rao judgment.
2014 & 2019 – References to Larger Benches
The Jharkhand High Court refuses to quash the case against Sita Soren. Later, 2-judge and 3-judge benches of the Supreme Court note that the issue has great public importance and refer it to a larger bench for reconsideration of the 1998 ruling.
2023 – Questioning the 1998 View
A 5-judge bench expresses doubt about the correctness of the immunity given in the 1998 Narasimha Rao case and sends the matter to a 7-judge Constitution Bench.
2024 – 7-Judge Bench Final Verdict
The 7-judge bench unanimously holds that bribery is not protected by legislative privileges. MPs and MLAs can be prosecuted if they accept money connected to any vote or speech, and the contrary part of the 1998 decision is overruled.
Arguments – Appellant vs Respondent
Key points put forward by both sides across the original case and its later review.
Appellants (MPs / MLAs claiming immunity)
- Argued that Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) give complete protection for anything said or any vote given in the House, including situations where the member later faces criminal charges related to that vote or speech.
- Claimed that allowing criminal courts to question the motive behind a vote or speech would undermine free debate and honest functioning of the legislature.
- Emphasised that parliamentary privilege is essential to protect the independence of the House from interference by the executive, police or courts.
- In the Sita Soren context, it was argued that once a member has voted in the House, any related bribery allegation also gets covered by the same immunity.
Respondent (State / CBI / Anti-corruption side)
- Stated that parliamentary privilege protects only genuine legislative acts, not secret bargains and cash payments made outside the House.
- Pointed out that bribery is a complete offence the moment illegal gratification is accepted, even before the vote is cast. The crime does not disappear because the vote happens inside the House.
- Warned that the 1998 interpretation created a dangerous result: members who honour a corrupt agreement get protection, while those who do not are exposed to prosecution.
- Argued that privileges must be read harmoniously with anti-corruption laws, and cannot be used to create a “safe zone” for criminal conduct in public life.
- In the 2024 review, emphasised that the integrity of democratic institutions requires that no one, including lawmakers, should be above the law when they take bribes.
Judgment – 1998 vs 2024
Understanding how the Court first decided the case in 1998 and how that view was changed in 2024.
1998 – Original 5-Judge Constitution Bench
- By a narrow 3:2 majority, the Court held that if an MP or MLA takes a bribe and then actually votes or speaks in the House as promised, they are protected by Article 105(2) or 194(2) from criminal prosecution for that act.
- The majority treated the link between the bribe and the vote as part of the legislative function, and therefore within the zone of privilege.
- The minority strongly disagreed and warned that such a view would shield corruption and damage public faith in legislatures.
2024 – 7-Judge Bench Final Verdict
- The 7-judge bench unanimously overruled the earlier majority view. It held that neither Article 105(2) nor Article 194(2) can be used to protect bribery or corruption.
- The Court clarified that privileges cover what is said and how one votes inside the House, but do not extend to the illegal bargain or payment made outside.
- The Court stressed that bribery is complete when the illegal payment is accepted, and that legislative immunity cannot be stretched to cover this criminal act.
- As a result, MPs and MLAs who accept bribes in relation to their official functions can be investigated and prosecuted like any other public servant.
Ratio Decidendi
The central legal principle laid down by the 2024 Supreme Court decision.
- Privileges are for honest functioning, not private gain: Parliamentary and legislative privileges exist to protect the institution of the House and the freedom of its members to speak, debate and vote without fear of outside pressure. They are not a personal shield for members to commit offences.
- Bribery is outside the protection of “anything said or any vote given”: The phrase in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) covers genuine legislative acts. The corrupt bargain of accepting money for a vote or speech is a separate and illegal act that takes place outside the House and is therefore not protected.
- Bribery is a complete offence on acceptance: Once illegal gratification is taken, the offence is complete. Whether the member ultimately votes as promised or not does not erase the crime.
- Constitutional harmony with anti-corruption law: The Constitution cannot be read in a way that defeats the clear purpose of anti-corruption statutes. Privileges must be interpreted to support, not weaken, the rule of law.
- Overruling the earlier protection: To the extent that the 1998 Narasimha Rao judgment gave immunity to members who took bribes and then voted in the House, it was declared bad in law and overruled.
Why This Case Matters
Understanding the impact of this case on democracy, accountability and parliamentary practice.
- Closes a dangerous loophole: The 1998 ruling created a loophole where a member who fully executed a corrupt deal could escape punishment. The 2024 verdict closes this gap and restores common sense to the law.
- Strengthens public trust: When citizens see that lawmakers cannot hide behind privilege to protect bribery, confidence in the system and in the Supreme Court’s role as guardian of the Constitution increases.
- Clarifies the meaning of privilege: Students and practitioners now have a clearer understanding that privileges protect institutional independence and honest debate, not personal misconduct.
- Aligns constitutional law with anti-corruption policy: The decision sends a clear message that the fight against corruption applies fully to MPs and MLAs, who carry a higher responsibility as makers of law.
- Important for exam preparation: The case is now a leading authority on Articles 105 and 194, parliamentary privileges, and the limits of legislative immunity in India. It is very likely to appear in law school and competitive exams.
Key Takeaways for Students
Quick revision points you can use just before the exam.
- The JMM bribery case started with allegations that MPs were paid to defeat a no-confidence motion against a minority government.
- In 1998, a 3:2 majority of the Supreme Court treated bribe-linked votes and speeches as protected by Articles 105(2) and 194(2).
- This meant that if a member took a bribe and then actually voted as promised, they could not be prosecuted for that act.
- The Sita Soren case highlighted the absurdity of this position and led to a fresh look at the earlier ruling.
- The 7-judge bench in 2024 unanimously held that privileges do not cover bribery or illegal gratification.
- Bribery is an independent offence completed when the money is accepted, regardless of how the member finally votes.
- Privileges protect free speech, debate and voting inside the House, not corrupt deals made outside.
- The contrary part of the 1998 Narasimha Rao decision is now overruled and should be cited as such in exams.
Mnemonic & 3-Step Memory Hook
Use this simple code and story to recall the core principle in seconds.
Mnemonic: “BRI-VOTE-FREE”
- B – Bribe is never protected.
- R – Reason for privileges is free debate, not cash deals.
- I – Immunity is limited to real speech and vote.
- V – Vote in the House can be examined if linked to corruption.
- O – Old 1998 view is overruled.
- T – Two Articles: 105(2) and 194(2).
- E – Everyone is equally answerable to anti-corruption law.
3-Step Hook Story
- Step 1 – The Envelope: Imagine an MP quietly accepting an envelope of cash outside Parliament. This is the bribery moment – the crime is already complete.
- Step 2 – The Vote: Now picture the same MP raising a hand in the House. Earlier, this vote was treated like a magic shield against prosecution.
- Step 3 – The Shield Breaks: Finally, imagine the Supreme Court in 2024 breaking that shield and saying: “Privileges protect your voice, not your bribe.”
IRAC Outline
A short IRAC structure to help you frame an answer in exams.
Issue
Whether MPs and MLAs can claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) from criminal prosecution for bribery when the bribe is linked to any vote or speech inside the House.
Rule
Articles 105(2) and 194(2) protect “anything said or any vote given” in the legislature to ensure free debate and independence, but privileges must be read in harmony with anti-corruption law and cannot be extended to cover illegal gratification.
Application
Accepting a bribe is a separate, criminal act that takes place outside the House. The offence is complete on acceptance of the illegal payment. Linking this act to a later vote cannot convert the offence into a privileged action. Therefore, members who accept bribes can be investigated and prosecuted without violating legislative privileges.
Conclusion
The 7-judge bench in 2024 held that Articles 105(2) and 194(2) do not grant immunity from prosecution for bribery. The earlier 1998 Narasimha Rao ruling granting such protection was overruled, and legislators are fully answerable under corruption laws.
Glossary – Simple Meanings
Some important terms from the case explained in easy English.
No-confidence motion: A proposal in the legislature asking whether the House still has faith in the government. If the motion passes, the government is expected to resign.
Parliamentary privilege: Special rights and protections given to the House and its members so that they can perform their duties freely and independently.
Immunity: Legal protection that stops a person from being sued or prosecuted for certain acts. Here, it refers to protection for speeches and votes inside the House.
Bribery / Illegal gratification: Taking money or any benefit in return for doing or not doing an official act, such as casting a particular vote.
Constitution Bench: A bench of at least five judges of the Supreme Court that decides important questions about the Constitution.
Overruled decision: When a later and larger bench of the Court declares that an earlier judgment on the same point of law was wrong and should no longer be followed.
Student FAQs
Common questions students ask about this case, answered in simple language.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now