
As Parliament erupted over allegations of bribery and horse-trading, we look back on the JMM bribery case that dramatically foregrounded the issue of parliamentary corruption; and the difficult questions it raised.
January 1996: Rashtriya Mukti Morcha president Ravinder Kumar approaches the CBI, claiming that opposition MPs were allegedly bribed to vote for the Narasimha Rao government in the 1993 no -confidence motion. CBI files FIRS against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and Shailendra Mahato in March.
October 1996- Jan 1997 : CBI files three charge-sheets, naming Narasimha Rao, Buta Singh, Satish Sharma, Soren, Mandal, Marandi and Mahato among many others.
January 1997: Marandi, Mandal, Soren and Mahato released on bail after being in jail for four months.
April 1997: Shailendra Mahato turns informer and is pardoned by the court
October 13, 1997: Rao, Bhajan, Moily file special leave petitions in Supreme Court seeking constitutional immunity under Article 105. Court issues notice to CBI, but refuses to stay trial.
April 17, 1998: In a three-two verdict, SC rules that Article 105(2) of the Constitution provides immunity to bribe-takers — Mandal, Soren, Marandi, Mahato etc— as their act involved voting in Parliament. Those accused of giving bribes are liable to prosecution.
December 8, 1998: Government seeks review of judgment. The Supreme Court subsequently dismisses petition, citing the long delay on the part of the government.
June 4, 1999: Nine accused — Marandi, Soren and Mandal and Mahato, and former break-away Janata Dal MPs – Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, who was also a Union minister, Abhay Pratap Singh, Anadi Charan Das, Ram Sharan, Roshan Lal and Haji Ghulam Mohammed – were discharged.
September 29, 2000: Court delivers judgement. Convicts Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh but acquits nine others including Bhajan Lal, Ajit Singh and Rajeshwar Rao.
March 2002: Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh acquitted by the Delhi high court, citing contradictions/improvements” in Mahato’s statements and CBI’s inability to prove independent evidence.




