Case Analysis: Sita Soren V. Union Of India

Devkaran Singh Nandawat, BBA LLB (Hons.), School of Law, Christ (Deemed To Be University)

INTRODUCTION

In a significant ruling, on March 4, the Supreme Court overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment, which previously allowed members of parliament and legislative assemblies to claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for accepting bribes in anticipation of casting a vote or delivering a speech in the legislature. The constitutional provisions outlined in Articles 105 and 194, known as parliamentary privilege, play a crucial role in nurturing deliberative democracy, particularly in the context of a parliamentary system of governance. This privilege ensures that elected representatives, who have been entrusted with the confidence of the citizens, can freely express their opinions and perspectives within the legislative chambers without any intimidation or bias. Under the safeguard of parliamentary privilege, legislators from marginalized political parties can confidently participate in voting procedures, regardless of their minimal electoral support. Similarly, representatives from remote regions are empowered to address issues relevant to their constituencies without the fear of facing legal repercussions. Additionally, parliamentary privilege enables legislators to hold authorities accountable without the fear of being unjustly accused of defamation.