Supreme Court to reexamine JMM MPs bribery case judgment of 1998

A bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Justices T.S.Thakur, R.Banumathi in SLP (Crl) 2758/2014 titled as “Sita Soren vs Union of India through CBI” in its order on 23^rd September 2014 referred the issue of corruption by a MP/MLA to a larger bench. The court said “Since the issue arises for consideration is substantial and of general public importance, we refer these matters to a larger Bench of three Hon'ble Judges to be constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India”.

The case is that the Election Commission had in April 2012 countermanded the Rajya Sabha elections in Jharkhand and handed over probe to CBI following allegations of bribery. The CBI in its charge-sheet had accused Sita Soren of receiving Rs 1.5 lakh for proposing nomination and also casting vote in favour of Raj Kumar Agarwal, an independent candidate. She challenged her prosecution claiming immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India, which provided that no member of legislature of a state shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him/her in the legislature or any committee thereof. She cited the 1998 judgment in JMM MPs bribery case ( in which the apex court granted immunity from prosecution to MPs who took bribe and voted to save the then Congress government of P V Narasimha Rao in Parliament). Jharkhand High Court rejected her plea by coming to a conclusion that since she had not voted for the candidate for whom the bribe was allegedly paid, she was not entitled to immunity from prosecution as in the JMM MPs case the Supreme Court had allowed Ajit Singh's prosecution for not voting even after allegedly taking bribe.

The Supreme Court was of the view that the 1998 judgment in JMM MPs bribery case need a fresh look and hence referred the matter to CJI for constitution of a 3-Judge bench to decide the issue. As per the procedure adopted by the apex court, a two-judge bench can refer a question of law to a three-judge bench, which alone can decide whether such a question merited consideration by a constitution bench. 

In JMM MPs bribery case, a Constitution bench by a 3-2 majority had held that those who took bribe but did not vote were liable to be prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act as they would not be entitled to immunity from prosecution granted to MPs under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. 

Supreme Court rejects the various petitions challenging validity of National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill

The Supreme Court on 25th August 2014 rejected a bunch of PILs challenging the validity of Constitution (99th Amendment) Bill and the National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill 2014 on the ground that these are pre-mature as the bill is still in the process of becoming law and it has only been passed by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha at the moment. Since it will amend Articles 124(2) and 217(1) of the Constitution of India, it needs to be ratified by the legislatures of at least half of the States of India (i.e. min. 15 States) before being sent to the President for approval. This law will replace the present collegium system for appointment of Supreme Court and High courts judges under which the collegium comprising three senior most judges of Supreme court including the CJI recommends the appointment of High Court and Supreme Court judges. 

Under the new system proposed to be introduced by this new law, the appointment will be made by a Commission which will be called National Judicial Appointment Commission which will comprise of 6 persons comprising the Chief Justice of India, two other seniormost judges of Supreme Court, Law Minister of India and two eminent personalities who would be chosen by a panel of Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and leader of single largest party in Lok Sabha. 

The Attorney General argued that the Court can not restrain a government from enacting a law, it will lead to chaos, it will amount to interference of judiciary in legislative and executive domain.

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

CBI is not a constitutionally valid police force : Gauhati High Court

The Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in its detailed judgment on 6^th November 2013 in the case of ‘Navendra Kumar vs Union of India’ has held that CBI is not a constitutionally valid police force. Tracing the history of the CBI and the discussions which took place in the Constituent Assembly in 1949 on the issue of forming a Central bureau of investigation and intelligence while drafting the Constitution, the court held that it is the exclusive function of state Police in every state to carry out police functions like investigation, arrest, seizure, filing chargesheet and prosecution. The Parliament or the Central Government can make laws regarding police only for the Union Territories and not for the States. Moreover, the CBI was constituted by a mere Resolution of Ministry of Home affairs in 1963 and not by any statute and thus this agency is not legally and constitutionally formed and hence is not competent to take up police functions. It can only assist the police in collecting information by way of enquiries.  The Court thus quashed the resolution which constituted the CBI and also set aside the order of the Single Judge and further quashed the chargesheet which was filed by the CBI against the Petitioner in the designated CBI Court and the consequent trial. The Court however clarified that quashing of the proceedings, pending in the CBI Court, would not be a bar to any further investigation by police having jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Read the full Judgment.

Sunil Goel advocate B.Sc. L.Lb L.Lm

CAG report on irregularities in coal block allocation

Hi friends.

Here is the link to the official report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) on coal block allocation which made headlines and ruckus in Parliament in India recently :

Sunil Goel advocate 

B.Sc. L.Lb L.Lm