Authored By: Maheshwari Mahananda
National Law University, Odisha
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Seven-Judge Bench (CJI DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, PV Sanjay Kumar, Manoj Misra JJ)
Date of Judgment: 4 March 2024
Citation: [2024] INSC 161; [2024] 3 SCR 462
- Case Name & Citation
Sita Soren v Union of India [2024] INSC 161; [2024] 3 SCR 462
- Introduction
The Supreme Court case of Sita Soren v Union of India (2024) clarified the limits of legislative privilege under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). The core issue was whether legislators can claim immunity from prosecution for alleged bribery linked to their vote. The Court overruled the problematic portion of P V Narasimha Rao (1998) and held that criminal acts such as accepting bribes are not protected by legislative privilege.
- Background
Legislative privilege protects freedom of speech and vote inside the House. However, its purpose is institutional, not personal. Prior to this case, the 1998 Narasimha Rao ruling created a loophole where an MLA/MP who accepted a bribe and voted accordingly could claim immunity. This raised constitutional and ethical concerns.
- Facts of the Case
- Sita Soren, an MLA from Jharkhand, was accused of accepting a bribe during the 2012 Rajya Sabha election.
- The CBI filed a chargesheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
- She argued that her act was connected to her legislative voting and therefore protected by Article 194(2).
- The Jharkhand High Court dismissed her plea.
- She appealed before the Supreme Court, leading to a seven-judge bench reference.
- Issues Before the Court
- Whether Articles 105(2) and 194(2) provide immunity to legislators from prosecution for bribery connected to their speech or vote.
- Whether Narasimha Rao (1998) should be reconsidered or overruled.
- How to distinguish legitimate legislative acts from criminal conduct.
- Arguments
Prosecution:
- Privilege protects only core legislative acts, not criminal offences.
- Bribery is complete at the moment of accepting/agreeing to accept illegal gratification.
- Immunity for bribery undermines equality and public trust.
Defence /Soren:
- Bribery was connected to a legislative vote therefore, Article 194(2) applies.
- A broad view is necessary to ensure legislative independence.
- Narasimha Rao (1998) supports immunity in such cases.
- Judgment / Holding
- Legislators do NOT enjoy immunity for bribery under Articles 105(2) or 194(2).
- P V Narasimha Rao (1998) was overruled to that extent.
- Legislative privilege protects only speech, debate, and voting not criminal conduct.
- Criminal proceedings against Sita Soren may continue.
- Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi
- Privilege is functional, not personal.
- Bribery occurs outside the legislative sphere and cannot be shielded.
- Immunity for bribery contradicts constitutional morality and rule of law.
- Comparative democracies also exclude criminal acts from privilege.
- Significance
- Closes the loophole allowing legislators to escape prosecution.
- Strengthens anti-corruption jurisprudence.
- Reinforces that no one is above the law.
- Conclusion
The Supreme Court strengthened democratic accountability by holding that legislative privilege cannot be misused to protect corrupt acts. The ruling ensures that bribery remains punishable regardless of legislative context.
- References
- Cases
Sita Soren v Union of India [2024] INSC 161; [2024] 3 SCR 462
PV Narasimha Rao v State (1998) 2 SCC 626
2. Statutes
Constitution of India, arts 105(2), 194(2)
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
- Newspaper Article
‘MPs/MLAs Cannot Claim Immunity From Prosecution From A Charge Of Bribery’
The Times of India (New Delhi, 5 March 2024)
- Website Articles
Verdictum, ‘Sita Soren v Union of India – MLA Bribery Judgment Summary’ (4 March 2024) https://www.verdictum.in accessed 2 December 2025.
Supreme Court Observer, ‘MLA Bribery Judgment Summary – Sita Soren v Union of India’ (March 2024) https://www.scobserver.in accessed 2 December 2025.
