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
RE:Article 105
by Sanjay Baxi on Jul 21, 2008 04:27 PM Permalink
Any member of Parliament accepting money or any other valuable gift in consideration of speaking or raising a matter or giving vote in a certain manner in the House should be liable for action under the ordinary law of the land. The cash-for-question scam which came to light during the last winter session of Parliament in 2005 rocked the roots of the biggest democracy in the world. Therefore, to protect the dignity, honour and respect of the Parliament and its members, it is essential to put it beyond doubt that protection against legal action under article 105 of the Constitution does not extend to cover corrupt acts.
