On the first day of hearing on Wednesday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, argued that the case primarily concerns the Prevention of Corruption Act rather than parliamentary privileges.
Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran and advocate Vivek Singh appeared for the petitioner in the case Sita Soren, and argued that once a speech is made and vote is given, the nexus between the two is fulfilled.
“(Legislative) members need protection. Regarding criminal prosecution, you cannot differentiate between corruption and defamation. Political corruption is the way of modern life, the Court out of a sense of moral outrage should not proceed further…it is not the job of the Court to find solutions to all moral problems or conundrums.“
The CJI responded that courts cannot question speeches or votes in Parliament. However,
“This does not seek to implicate other aspects such as that of criminality, political morality etc, is dealt by the Tenth Schedule.”
Ramachandran then stated that if political corruption is the way of life, then misuse of law is also the way of life.
“Politicians have faced discrimination at the hands of probe agencies of different states. This Court should not interfere with a carefully considered and well reasoned judgment, PV Narsimha Rao. The judgment which was not unconscious of constitutional morality and there is no ground to upset the view taken.“
Source: Barandbench
