Experts: MPs who alleged cash-for-vote can also face action

The three BJP MPs accusing the Samajwadi Party and Congress of bribing them may find themselves in the line of fire for offences...

The three BJP MPs accusing the Samajwadi Party and Congress of bribing them may find themselves in the line of fire for offences ranging from breach of privilege to breaching the Parliament’s security to even corruption charges.

Endorsing Speaker Somnath Chaterjee’s view that the matter needs to be thoroughly inquired into, top constitutional experts, all of whom termed it as a “tamasha”, pointed out that proceedings could be initiated against the MPs as well.

While agreeing unanimously that the ball is in the court of the Speaker, Fali S Nariman, the renowned constitutional expert said, “It would be better and appropriate that the matter is probed within the House”.

Story continues below this ad

“With this side show, so much disrepute was brought to Parliament,” said Nariman. Indicating that it largely appears to be “stage-managed”, Nariman said in view of whatever facts have emerged so far, “there is little credibility to what is being projected”

Rajeev Dhavan, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court echoed Nariman’s views , said the BJP never took the line that they had prima facie evidence to substantiate the allegations. “If they could produce prime facie evidence, then the vote would have been tainted.” But the party chose not to do so,” he said. “Because there was no evidence, the Speaker continued with the trust vote,” Dhavan added.

Former Union law minister Shanti Bhushan was also of the opinion that the entire episode in Parliament falls within the domain of criminal action. “A criminal case is made out against the person who offered them bribe. The three MPs are also guilty as they chose to breach the privilege of the House instead of reporting the matter to the police or informing the Speaker,” he said.

Nariman said, “The Speaker would like to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee or the Ethics Committee, which shall then look into the entire evidence and submit its report, instead of referring the case to the police. Then, the Speaker would take a decision on whether they should be disqualified or not.”

Story continues below this ad

According to constitutional expert Subhash C Kashyap, one of the two affected parties can go to court and file a PIL. “And then, the court can decide on the matters of jurisdiction,” he said.

Kashyap and Nariman, however, agree on one count that the JMM judgment that confers legal immunity to bribe takers needs to be reviewed. “If the order is challenged in the Supreme Court, I am confident that it will be reversed,”said Kashyap.

But Nariman pointed out that it will take a very long time for that to happen as it can be set aside only by a seven-judge Bench. The only other way is if Parliament were to amend the Constitution. “But Parliament will never do it”, he said. “Legislatures don’t want supervision of the courts”.

For Kashyap, the alleged cash-for-vote drama points to the need for larger systemic reforms: “We need to reconsider the first-past-the-post electoral system and bring in a law for the de-recognition of political parties.”