The question arose in the context of bribery charges against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MLA Sita Soren in connection with the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections to two seats from the state. Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Monday set up a seven-judge bench that will reconsider the correctness of 1998 five-judge Constitution bench judgment in the P V Narasimha Rao case wherein the majority held that legislators were immune to prosecution on bribery charges for their speech or vote in Parliament. The bench, to be presided by the CJI, will also comprise Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra. A notice issued by the SC said the bench will start hearing the matter from October 4, 2023. On September 20, a five-judge constitution bench presided by the CJI that took up the matter had said: “We are of the considered view that the correctness of the view of majority in P V Narsimha Rao should be reconsidered by a larger bench of seven judges. The bench added it is an “important issue that concerns our polity…”. It said that the larger bench would deal with the question of correctness of the verdict on the interpretation of Artcles 105(2) and 194(2) of Constitution which extends the privilege to a member of Parliament and member of state legislature, respectively. The SC pointed out that “above all, it must be noted that the purpose of Article 105 (2) and 194(2) is to ensure that members of the Parliament and that of the state legislatures are able to discharge their duties in an atmosphere of freedom, without fear of the consequences which may follow for the manner in which they speak or exercise their right to vote on the floor of the House. The object clearly is not to set apart the members of the legislature as persons who wield higher privileges in terms of immunity from the application of the general criminal law of the land which citizens of the land do not possess.” The question arose in the context of bribery charges against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MLA Sita Soren in connection with the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections to two seats from the state. She was accused of having accepted a bribe from an independent candidate for casting her vote in his favour. Soren said that she did not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver and in fact had cast her vote in favour of a candidate belonging to her own party, this fact having emerged from open balloting for RS seat. The round of poll in question was rescinded, and a fresh one was held in which she voted in favour of a candidate of her own party. She moved the Jharkhand Court for quashing the chargesheet and criminal proceedings instituted against her relying on the provisions of Article 194 (2) but the HC declined to do so on the ground that she “had not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver”. Soren then approached the SC where a two-judge bench in September 2014 opined that since the issue arising for consideration “is substantial and of general public importance”, it should be placed before a larger bench of three judges. On March 7, 2019, when a bench of three judges took up the appeal, it noted that the HC judgment dealt with Narasimha Rao verdict and hence should be referred to larger bench as may be considered appropriate. Attorney General K K Venugopal said that Narasimha Rao judgment does not apply to the facts of the case as the immunity is only for actions with respect to the business of the House. The alleged acts of Soren were not with respect to any business of the House and hence she can be prosecuted and there was no need to examine the correctness of the decision at all, he contended. Rejecting this, the SC said, “the only question is — should we wait for it to arise sometime in the future or lay down a law? Because we must also not ignore that if it also furthers public morality on part of our elected representatives, then we should not defer our decision to some uncertain day in the future, isn’t it?”.