Case Commentary – P.V Narsimha Rao V. State (CBI/SPE)

Srishti Sabharwal, O.P. Jindal Global University Yashada Deshpande, O.P. Jindal Global University

INTRODUCTION

In the year 2000, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India led by S.C. Agarwal, G.N. Rao, A.S. Anand, S.P. Barucha and S. Rajendra Babu had sat for the hearing of P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) famously known as the “JMM Bribery case”.

Initially, legal action was taken by the state against some purported offenders for committing the offence of bribery. The Special Judge in Delhi took cognizance of the same. A petition was then filed in the High Court of Delhi to quash the charges pressed against the accused individuals. After dismissing the petition, an appeal was made by Shri P.P. Rao, Shri D.D. Thakur, and Shri Kapil Sibal who were the learned counsel for the appellants in the Supreme Court of India which was later referred to a constitutional bench.

The court in a split decision of 3:2 ratio, held the judgement in favor of the Members of Parliament declaring that they were entitled to immunity from the criminal prosecution for the offence of bribery, under Article 105 of the Constitution of India.3 This decision left numerous individuals disappointed including the members of the legal committee and law enforcement. It is crucial to peruse this verdict as it is likely to bear significant implications for both the Indian Parliament as well as the broader political outlook in India.