Article 105(1) of the Constitution provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament. Clause (2) of the same article says that no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceeding in any court of law in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any of its Committees. Similar provisions are there for members of State Legislatures under article 194 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement in 1998 in the JMM pay off case held that a bribe-taker can claim immunity under article 105 of the Constitution if he has actually spoken or voted as per the wishes of the bribe-giver. As a result what was morally impermissible was made legally permissible. It would have never been the intention of the founding fathers of our Constitution that such a protection shall be given to a person involved in corrupt practices or acts. The Constitution Review Commission in its report submitted in 2002 observed that such an interpretation of immunity of members of Parliament runs counter to all nations of justice, fairplay and good conduct. It has further been observed that freedom of speech inside the House cannot be used by members to solicit or accept bribes which is an offence under the criminal law of the country and JMM verdict makes it necessary to clarify true intent of the Constitution. Any mem
