In a groundbreaking ruling, the Supreme Court asserted that the commission of a bribery offense is instantaneous upon the acceptance of illegal gratification, without dependence on the actual fulfillment of promised actions. A pivotal 7-judge Constitution Bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, dismantled the notion that legislative immunity shields lawmakers who accept bribes for votes or speeches within the legislature.
The verdict, which overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment, challenged the paradoxical immunity granted to legislators despite their involvement in bribery. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized that the offense of bribery materializes upon the receipt or agreement to receive undue advantage, irrespective of subsequent actions.
Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the mere acceptance or attempt to obtain undue advantage constitutes an offense, distinct from the execution of public duties. The judgment accentuated that the act of bribery culminates at the point of exchange, emphasizing the irrelevance of subsequent actions.
The Court rebuffed the notion that the location of the bribe’s exchange within the legislative precincts alters the offense’s nature. It clarified that the offense transcends parliamentary privilege, as it is rooted in the acceptance of undue advantage, rather than parliamentary proceedings.
The ruling in Sita Soren v. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019) marks a significant shift in legal interpretation, reinforcing the principle that the acceptance of bribery alone suffices for prosecution.
