In Brief
In this criminal appeal arising from a Rajya Sabha election, the appellant, a state legislator, was accused of accepting a bribe to vote for a particular candidate. However, she voted for her own party's candidate instead. The High Court rejected her claim for immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, as she had not voted as promised. A five-judge Bench held that the interpretation of parliamentary immunity in the landmark case PV Narasimha Rao required reconsideration by a larger seven-judge Bench. The Court found that immunity should only apply when the actual speech or vote is essential to the cause of action, not merely connected to alleged corrupt conduct. Since the appellant never cast the promised vote, immunity should not have been denied on that ground alone.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.