NEW DELHI: Whereas overruling SC’s 26-year-old judgment in P V Narasimha Rao case, a 7-judge bench mentioned the sooner verdict was rooted in a incorrect interpretation of legal guidelines governing freedom of speech in United Kingdom and India, and famous that within the final 20 years even UK SC has allowed prosecution of corrupt elected representatives.Going by means of legal guidelines associated to prosecution of MPs in UK, US, Canada and Australia, the bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud devoted 30 pages to analysing the event of jurisprudence regarding privileges and immunities loved by MPs in these international locations.The bench leaned in direction of the place of legislation in Australia which articulates that “the act of bribery impairs capacity of the member to exercise a disinterested judgment, thereby impacting their ability to act as a representative of people.”Justice Chandrachud mentioned majority opinion in P V Narasimha Rao case did not pay attention to two judgments of Australian Supreme Courtroom however have been seen by minority opinion to interpret Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of Indian Structure and rule that bribe taking constituted an offence not protected by immunity granted below these two provisions.The CJI-led bench mentioned Canadian SC dominated that “legislative bodies do not constitute enclaves shielded from ordinary law of the land. The party that seeks to rely on immunity under broader umbrella of parliamentary privilege has onus of establishing its existence.”The bench adopted in its judgment logic expressed by Canadian SC’s 2005 ruling in Canada (Home of Commons) vs Vaid, the place the latter had mentioned, “Legislature or member seeking immunity must prove that the activity for which privilege is claimed is closely and directly connected with the fulfilment by legislature of its functions and that external interference will impact autonomy required for the assembly to carry out its functions with ‘dignity and efficiency’.”Justice Chandrachud mentioned majority judgment in Rao case had referred to 2 US SC judgments – US vs Thomas F Johnson (1966) and US vs Brewster (1972). Majority opinion failed on two counts – “Firstly, it fails to account for the fact that Speech and Debate Clause which is substantially borrowed from Article IX of English Bill of Rights confers immunity to speech and vote made in Parliament. The understanding arrived at in the majority judgment was not informed by evolution of law in a line of cases in US.””Majority judgment has extended its interpretation of Speech and Debate Clause and pigeon-holed the interpretation of Article 105(2) to satisfy this understanding,” the CJI mentioned.
#Mistaken #legislation #led #defective #order #Supreme #Courtroom #India #Information
For more information, check out these articles:
For more resources, check out the following links:
