'Whistle blowers' can face action, say legal experts
The three BJP MPs who alleged the UPA government’s allies tried to bribe them for supporting the trust vote could be prosecuted for breaching parliamentary privileges, constitutional experts said.
By Sanjay K Singh, ET Bureau |
NEW DELHI: The three BJP MPs who alleged the UPA government���s allies tried to bribe them for supporting the trust vote could be prosecuted for breaching parliamentary privileges, constitutional experts said.
Legal experts are of the opinion that the case was different than the infamous JMM bribery scandal that rocked the Narasimha Rao-led Congress government.
The bribery allegations need an inquiry to initiate prosecution. There is no immunity from prosecution as the apex court ruling in JMM bribery case is not applicable here, experts said.
���I personally doubt the authenticity of the allegations. The way they (MPs) went inside Parliament with money bag is a gross breach of privileges of the House,��� noted constitutional expert Fali S Nariman. If there really was an attempt to bribe them, they should have informed the Speaker and it was the Speaker���s duty to find out the truth and act accordingly, said Mr Nariman.
This case is different from the JMM bribery case as the three MPs who made the charge may not have voted for the government after accepting the bribe, said Mr Nariman.
Former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee said: ���This is a very serious matter which requires investigation to maintain the sanctity of democracy.��� He also said the present case is different from the JMM bribery case. ���Further, I feel that the apex court verdict in 1998 case requires reconsideration,��� added Mr Sorabjee.
Another constitutional expert and former law minister Shanti Bhushan said the MPs committed breach of privileges of the House, for which they could be prosecuted. ���If there were attempts to bribe them, they should have approached the Speaker and made a complaint. It was for the Speaker to go into the authenticity of the allegations and pass an appropriate order,��� he said.
The former minister agreed with other experts that the case was different from the controversial JMM bribery case. In the 1998 ruling, the apex court had granted immunity to those bribe takers who had cast their votes accordingly. But in this case, there were allegations of bribing MPs who did not vote accordingly, said Mr Bhushan. So there is no immunity to such MPs, added Mr Bhushan.
However, constitutional expert P P Rao said MPs should have informed the police and made a complaint. Instead, they took the money, for which prosecution lies against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act as they are public servants, said Mr Rao. He further said both the bribe takers and givers are covered under the anti-corruption law.
Another constitutional expert P N Lekhi on the contrary feels that the MPs who took the bribe but came to the House and informed it cannot be prosecuted. Taking the bribe and abstaining from the House for the giving effect to it completes the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. But by not doing it, the offence was not completed, said Mr Lekhi. Instead the alleged bribe givers could be prosecuted, if allegation proved, added Lekhi.
In 1998, the apex court in controversial JMM bribery case in a split verdict, 3:2, had ruled that ���bribe-giving MPs��� did not enjoy any immunity and were liable to be prosecuted under the anti-corruption law. It had split bribe-taking MPs into two categories ��� those who voted and those who did not. The bribe-taking MPs who honoured the deal, that is those who voted in the House in a particular manner for a consideration, were granted immunity from prosecution by the apex court.
Legal experts are of the opinion that the case was different than the infamous JMM bribery scandal that rocked the Narasimha Rao-led Congress government.
The bribery allegations need an inquiry to initiate prosecution. There is no immunity from prosecution as the apex court ruling in JMM bribery case is not applicable here, experts said.
���I personally doubt the authenticity of the allegations. The way they (MPs) went inside Parliament with money bag is a gross breach of privileges of the House,��� noted constitutional expert Fali S Nariman. If there really was an attempt to bribe them, they should have informed the Speaker and it was the Speaker���s duty to find out the truth and act accordingly, said Mr Nariman.
This case is different from the JMM bribery case as the three MPs who made the charge may not have voted for the government after accepting the bribe, said Mr Nariman.
Former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee said: ���This is a very serious matter which requires investigation to maintain the sanctity of democracy.��� He also said the present case is different from the JMM bribery case. ���Further, I feel that the apex court verdict in 1998 case requires reconsideration,��� added Mr Sorabjee.
ADVERTISEMENT
Another constitutional expert and former law minister Shanti Bhushan said the MPs committed breach of privileges of the House, for which they could be prosecuted. ���If there were attempts to bribe them, they should have approached the Speaker and made a complaint. It was for the Speaker to go into the authenticity of the allegations and pass an appropriate order,��� he said.
The former minister agreed with other experts that the case was different from the controversial JMM bribery case. In the 1998 ruling, the apex court had granted immunity to those bribe takers who had cast their votes accordingly. But in this case, there were allegations of bribing MPs who did not vote accordingly, said Mr Bhushan. So there is no immunity to such MPs, added Mr Bhushan.
However, constitutional expert P P Rao said MPs should have informed the police and made a complaint. Instead, they took the money, for which prosecution lies against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act as they are public servants, said Mr Rao. He further said both the bribe takers and givers are covered under the anti-corruption law.
Another constitutional expert P N Lekhi on the contrary feels that the MPs who took the bribe but came to the House and informed it cannot be prosecuted. Taking the bribe and abstaining from the House for the giving effect to it completes the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. But by not doing it, the offence was not completed, said Mr Lekhi. Instead the alleged bribe givers could be prosecuted, if allegation proved, added Lekhi.
ADVERTISEMENT
In 1998, the apex court in controversial JMM bribery case in a split verdict, 3:2, had ruled that ���bribe-giving MPs��� did not enjoy any immunity and were liable to be prosecuted under the anti-corruption law. It had split bribe-taking MPs into two categories ��� those who voted and those who did not. The bribe-taking MPs who honoured the deal, that is those who voted in the House in a particular manner for a consideration, were granted immunity from prosecution by the apex court.
Download
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
Download
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
ADVERTISEMENT
