Soren conundrum goes to higher Bench
The order was passed in a case relating to JMM chief Shibu Soren’s daughter-in-law Sita Soren, who is accused by the CBI of horse-trading during the Rajya Sabha polls in 2012. Being an MlA she allegedly received Rs 1.5 lakh for proposing the name of an independent candidate in the Jharkhand Assembly.
Soren has since sought protection as per the 1998 Supreme Court verdict in JMM bribery case which gave immunity to legislators against prosecution. The Bench of Justices TS Thakur and R Banumathi found that Soren’s petition raised a larger issue on whether immunity was available to her under the 1998 decision.
For CBI, Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh argued that the split verdict (3:2) of the apex court in JMM bribery case needed a fresh look in the light of the growing trend of large number of elected representatives being involved in corruption cases.
The Bench directed, “Since the issue that arises for consideration is substantial and of general public importance, we refer these matters to a larger Bench of three judges to be constituted by Chief Justice of India.” The court left it to the three-judge Bench to decide whether a constitution Bench required to be formed if the need so arises to revisit the 1998 decision.
The decision of the court is significant considering the fact that the 1998 verdict gave a blanket protection to elected representatives to commit any wrongdoing and get away with it. The controversy involved in the 1998 case related to payoffs being made to MPs for voting against a no-confidence motion in favour of the then PV Narasimha Rao Government.
The majority SC verdict held that the accused MPs will get protection under Article 105(2) that grants them immunity from criminal prosecution for anything said or vote cast in the House.
Sita Soren too claimed similar immunity available to state legislators under Article 194(2). According to her, she did not vote for the candidate from whom the CBI claimed that she received the alleged bribe. Her claim for immunity was rejected by the Jharkhand High Court in February this year.
The CBI argued that the HC was right to deny her immunity as the bribe was received prior to the act of voting. Moreover, she did not vote in favour of the candidate in question and hence, the bribe would have no nexus with the voting which disentitled her claim for immunity.