This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
π€£17π4β€βπ₯2π₯2π1
10177_2014_1_1501_51211_Judgement_04-Mar-2024.pdf
866.6 KB
Sita soren v. Union of India, 2024
Read the index and let me know if you want a brief on something else other than main issue.
@CurrentLegalGK
Read the index and let me know if you want a brief on something else other than main issue.
@CurrentLegalGK
π3
π
#Quote
βInformation is the currency of democracy,β and critical to the emergence and development of a vibrant civil society.
~Thomas Jefferson
@CurrentLegalGK
βInformation is the currency of democracy,β and critical to the emergence and development of a vibrant civil society.
~Thomas Jefferson
@CurrentLegalGK
π4π―2β€1
π Solve these Questions --
I know you all are lazy and you will not solve the whole paper that is why I have selected some questions.
English and GK were of moderate level.
Always answer MCQ with reasons, why the answer is this and why not other options, this is a habit which will make your memory strong.
@CurrentLegalGK
I know you all are lazy and you will not solve the whole paper that is why I have selected some questions.
English and GK were of moderate level.
Always answer MCQ with reasons, why the answer is this and why not other options, this is a habit which will make your memory strong.
@CurrentLegalGK
π5π―2
CJ Pre Result-2022.pdf
11.7 MB
π€©
π Cut off 113
Mention if you are selected we will help you for mains (mention your real name)
@CurrentLegalGK
MPCJ resultπ Cut off 113
Mention if you are selected we will help you for mains (mention your real name)
@CurrentLegalGK
π6π2
π¨ββοΈπ©ββοΈ
β Case: Sita Soren v. UOI 2024
β Coram: 7 Judges
1. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud
2. A.S. Bopanna
3. M.M. Sundresh
4. J.B. Pardiwala
5. Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
6. Manoj Mishra
7. Sanjay Kumar
β Issue: Would a legislator who receives a bribe to cast a vote in a certain direction or speak about certain issues be protected by parliamentary privilegeβ
β Sections:
βοΈ105(2)- No MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything
βοΈ194(2)- Same for MLAs
β Facts: Jharkhand MLA did not cast vote after taking bribe in rajya Sabha election High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the appellant had not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver, not entitled to the protection under Article 194(2). (Scope of present judgment confined to doubting correctness of PV. Narasimha 1998)
β PV. Narasimha Rao v. State 1998 (5 Judge bench)
1. Two Issues were there 1 is the same as the present case and another one was MP falls within purview of POCA, 1988
[2024 judgment deals with only one issue]
Held:
βοΈ SP bharucha & S Rajendra babu -
1. In respect ofβ in Article 105(2) must receive a βbroad meaningβ MP is protected from any proceedings in a court of law that relate to, nexus with anything said or a vote given by him in Parliament.
2. Also -- Why does an MP not voting after taking Bribery will not come under 105 - immunity under Article 105(2) is operative only insofar as it pertains to what has been said or voted.
3. Bribe givers are liable.
βοΈSC Garwal & AS Anand
1. Expression βin respect ofβ precedes the words βanything said or any vote givenβ in Article 105(2). The words βanything said or any vote givenβ can only mean speech that has been made or a vote that has already been given and does not extend to cases where the speech has not been made or the vote has not been cast.
(Dissented majority)
2. Act of acceptance of a bribe for speaking or giving a vote against the motion arises independently of the making of the speech or giving of the vote by the MP.
βοΈ GN Ray concurred with 1st 2 judges this forming majority against S.C. Agarwal.
β Submissions made by Appellant and intervenors (on behalf of MLA of Jharkhand and Attorney/solicitors respectively)
1. Attorney General, the election of members to the Rajya Sabha is akin to any other election process and cannot be treated as a matter of business or function of the legislature, hence no immunity.
2. Intervenors - The offence under Section 7 (and Section 13) of the POCA does not require βperformanceβ. Therefore, Voting or speech is irrelevant of Bribery, Also word any should not include everything because of exceptional immunity and strict and narrow interpretation in corruption case.
3. Amicus curiae - Minority judgment of PV Narasimha is correct and USA Canada UK too does not give immunity to Bribery.
4. Appellant - The overruling of long-settled law in PV Narasimha Rao is unwarranted according to the tests laid down by this court on overturning judicial precedents (keshav mills co. 1965 cited)
-----------------------------------
β Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao does not violate the principle of stare decisis
1. Smaller bench must follow larger bench judgment but similar bench can raise question and place it before larger bench (as happened here from 2 judges bench to 3 then 5 where doubtless was raised in 2023 and placed before 7 bench)
2. Ability of this Court to reconsider its decisions is necessary for the organic development of law and the advancement of justice. If this Court is denuded of its power to reconsider its decisions, the development of constitutional jurisprudence would virtually come to a standstill.
Continued...
#Case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
Topic: Bribery not protected by immunity/privileges of MPs/MLAsβ Case: Sita Soren v. UOI 2024
β Coram: 7 Judges
1. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud
2. A.S. Bopanna
3. M.M. Sundresh
4. J.B. Pardiwala
5. Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
6. Manoj Mishra
7. Sanjay Kumar
β Issue: Would a legislator who receives a bribe to cast a vote in a certain direction or speak about certain issues be protected by parliamentary privilegeβ
β Sections:
βοΈ105(2)- No MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything
said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.βοΈ194(2)- Same for MLAs
β Facts: Jharkhand MLA did not cast vote after taking bribe in rajya Sabha election High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the appellant had not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver, not entitled to the protection under Article 194(2). (Scope of present judgment confined to doubting correctness of PV. Narasimha 1998)
β PV. Narasimha Rao v. State 1998 (5 Judge bench)
1. Two Issues were there 1 is the same as the present case and another one was MP falls within purview of POCA, 1988
[2024 judgment deals with only one issue]
Held:
βοΈ SP bharucha & S Rajendra babu -
1. In respect ofβ in Article 105(2) must receive a βbroad meaningβ MP is protected from any proceedings in a court of law that relate to, nexus with anything said or a vote given by him in Parliament.
2. Also -- Why does an MP not voting after taking Bribery will not come under 105 - immunity under Article 105(2) is operative only insofar as it pertains to what has been said or voted.
3. Bribe givers are liable.
βοΈSC Garwal & AS Anand
1. Expression βin respect ofβ precedes the words βanything said or any vote givenβ in Article 105(2). The words βanything said or any vote givenβ can only mean speech that has been made or a vote that has already been given and does not extend to cases where the speech has not been made or the vote has not been cast.
(Dissented majority)
2. Act of acceptance of a bribe for speaking or giving a vote against the motion arises independently of the making of the speech or giving of the vote by the MP.
βοΈ GN Ray concurred with 1st 2 judges this forming majority against S.C. Agarwal.
β Submissions made by Appellant and intervenors (on behalf of MLA of Jharkhand and Attorney/solicitors respectively)
1. Attorney General, the election of members to the Rajya Sabha is akin to any other election process and cannot be treated as a matter of business or function of the legislature, hence no immunity.
2. Intervenors - The offence under Section 7 (and Section 13) of the POCA does not require βperformanceβ. Therefore, Voting or speech is irrelevant of Bribery, Also word any should not include everything because of exceptional immunity and strict and narrow interpretation in corruption case.
3. Amicus curiae - Minority judgment of PV Narasimha is correct and USA Canada UK too does not give immunity to Bribery.
4. Appellant - The overruling of long-settled law in PV Narasimha Rao is unwarranted according to the tests laid down by this court on overturning judicial precedents (keshav mills co. 1965 cited)
-----------------------------------
β Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao does not violate the principle of stare decisis
1. Smaller bench must follow larger bench judgment but similar bench can raise question and place it before larger bench (as happened here from 2 judges bench to 3 then 5 where doubtless was raised in 2023 and placed before 7 bench)
2. Ability of this Court to reconsider its decisions is necessary for the organic development of law and the advancement of justice. If this Court is denuded of its power to reconsider its decisions, the development of constitutional jurisprudence would virtually come to a standstill.
Continued...
#Case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
π5π1π―1