Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

38. In the Brewster case the Supreme Court of the United States narrowed the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution which provides immunity to the Senators from certain civil and criminal suits concerning their legislative acts. In explaining the purposes of the Speech or Debate Clause, the US Supreme Court traced the ancestry of the Clause to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which they put as "the culmination of a long struggle for parliamentary supremacy". Not all actions taken by a Member in the course of his congressional duties are covered by the Speech or Debate Clause. As is also aptly, pointed out by Lord Salmon in the Salmon Commission Report [Report of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life, 1976 (chaired by Lord Salmon)] "Now this is a charter for freedom of speech in the House; it is not a charter for corruption". The law scholar pointed out that PV Narasimha Rao judgment blatantly took the literal interpretation of the provision 105(1) and 105(2) rather increased the scope of immunity under it. According to article 105(2) of the Constitution of India a Member of the parliament is immune from any proceeding against him in respect of any Vote or in respect of any speech made by the M.P in the parliament. "According to the provisions of the CIC/ISTIN/A/2017/184311 Page 34 Parliament such immunity is necessary in order to protect the integrity of the Country. But such immunity cannot go beyond the ambit of the scope of the article. Article 105(1) of the Constitution of India says that the freedom of speech in Parliament is absolute and independent of Article 19. And Article 105(2) says that the Constitution of India provides Immunities of M.Ps in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament. But these Immunities do not allow the MPs to accept bribes and indulge into immoral practices. The right to indulge into bribe is no where explained in the Articles of the Constitution as it is an illegal practice". This scholar referred to two Rules of interpretation- Golden Rule and Mischief Rule. Golden Rule is that Sec 2(c)(viii) & 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Representation of the Peoples Act, the MP comes under the term of Public Servant, thus taking of bribe by a Public Servant under his office capacity is an illegal Act which needs to be prosecuted.[L.K. Advani v. CBI; 1993 IIIAD Delhi 53, 1997 RLR 292] Mischief Rule ignored