“We have held that the alleged bribe takers who voted upon the no-confidence motion, that is, Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi, Shailender Mehto, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ramsharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, Abhay Pratap Singh and Haji Gulam Mohammed (accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21) are entitled to the immunity conferred by Article 105(2).
D. K. Adikeshavulu and M. Thimmogowda (accused Nos. 12 and 13) were at all relevant times private persons. The trial on all charges against them must proceed.
When cognizance of the charges against them was taken. Buta Singh and N. M. Ravanna (accused Nos. 7 and 9) were not public servants. The question of santion for their prosecution, does not, therefore, arise and the trial on all charges against them must proceed.
P. V. Narasimha Rao, Satish Sharma, V. Rajeswar Rao, Ram Linga Reddy, M. Veerappa Moily and Bhajan Lal (accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 10, 11 and 14) were public servants, being either members of Parliament or a State legislature, when cognizance of the charges against them was taken. They are charged with substantive offences under S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and S. 12 of the said Act. Since no prior sanction is required in respect of the charge under S. 12 of the said Act, the trial on all charges against them must proceed.
Ajit Singh (accused No.15) was a public servant, being a member of Parliament, when cognizance of the charges against him was taken. He is charged with substantive offences under S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 7 and 13(2) of the said Act. The trial of the charge against him under S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code must proceed.” Continue reading “Whether by virtue of Article 105 of the Constitution a Member of Parliament can claim immunity from prosecution”