The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark verdict that reverberates through the corridors of power. Transparency, accountability and the integrity of democratic institutions are supreme. The Apex Court has unequivocally declared that MPs and MLAs are not immune from prosecution for accepting bribes in exchange for votes or speeches within the hallowed halls of the legislature. This monumental ruling overturns a controversial 1998 judgement that shielded lawmakers from criminal prosecution for such actions, asserting that bribery cannot find shelter under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. The verdict strikes at the heart of corruption in politics, reaffirming the principle that no one, regardless of their position, is above the law. By dismantling the shield of immunity that had long protected errant legislators, the Supreme Court has taken a decisive step towards cleansing the political landscape of malfeasance and restoring public trust in the democratic process.

At the core of this judgement lies a fundamental reassertion of constitutional principles. Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution, which delineate the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs, do not confer carte blanche immunity for acts of bribery. Rather, they enshrine the sanctity of Parliamentary proceedings as forums for reasoned debate and deliberation, untainted by the influence of pecuniary interests. As aptly noted by the court, corruption and bribery corrode the very essence of public service and undermine the foundation of democracy itself. Decades earlier, a narrow reading of parliamentary privileges shielded lawmakers from criminal liability. In re-evaluating this precedent, the bench has affirmed that the privileges claimed by legislators must be intrinsically linked to their essential functions as representatives of the people. Bribery, far from being a prerogative of office, is antithetical to the principles of democracy.

The journey towards this watershed moment has been fraught with legal and moral complexities. The case originated from the JMM bribery scandal of 1993, where legislators were accused of accepting bribes to influence a crucial no-confidence vote. It is worth noting the role of individual petitioners in catalysing this judicial reckoning. Sita Soren, the JMM MLA at the centre of the controversy, challenged the status quo, invoking constitutional provisions to demand accountability for alleged acts of corruption. Justice may take some time, but it will ultimately be delivered to hold those in positions of power accountable and underscore the indispensable role of the judiciary in safeguarding the public interest. The ramifications of this verdict extend far beyond the confines of the courtroom. It sends a powerful message to legislators and political parties alike that the era of impunity is over. No longer can bribery be concealed behind the veil of parliamentary privilege, and no longer can the corridors of power serve as breeding grounds for corruption. Instead, they must become bastions of integrity, where the public interest reigns supreme and the trust of the electorate is sacrosanct. Questions about money have been in the news for decades and have rocked the last session of Parliament as well. This judgement has at least sealed this aspect of Parliamentary proceedings.

The Prime Minister’s endorsement of the verdict underscores its significance in the broader context of governance and political ethics. By applauding the court’s ruling as a victory for clean politics, the PM reaffirms his Government’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of integrity and accountability. In a climate where public disillusionment with politics runs deep, this verdict serves as a beacon of hope, signalling a renewed emphasis on ethical conduct and responsible governance. The SC’s verdict stands as a beacon of hope and a clarion call for change. It reaffirms the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of adversity and reaffirms the principle that justice knows no compromise. In upholding the integrity of the legislative process and the sanctity of the rule of law, the court has set a precedent that will resonate for generations to come.