How Shibu Soren's Own Family Helped Overturn the Ruling That Once Favoured Him in the JMM Bribery Case. Understand in 6 Points

Key Points:

Shibu Soren, former Chief Minister of Jharkhand and senior leader of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), passed away at the age of 81 on the morning of August 4, 2025. Popularly known as Dishom Guru, he had been a long-serving Member of Parliament, holding office from 1980 to 1984, 1989 to 1998, and 2002 to 2019. Renowned as a champion of tribal rights, Soren dedicated his life to improving the conditions of tribal communities in Jharkhand and across India.

However, his political journey was marred by controversies, including allegations of conspiracy, crime, and corruption. In November 2006, he was convicted in a 12-year-old case involving the kidnapping and murder of his former personal secretary, Shashinath Jha. According to the CBI chargesheet, the motive for the murder was Jha’s knowledge of a reported deal between the Congress and JMM to save P.V. Narasimha Rao’s government during a no-confidence motion—a scandal widely referred to as the JMM bribery case.

1. P.V. Narasimha Rao

Pamulaparti Venkata Narasimha Rao, India's ninth Prime Minister, is best remembered for ushering in the country’s landmark economic liberalisation in the early 1990s. Often described as a "silent strategist," Rao not only reshaped India’s economic future but also showcased remarkable political acumen, navigating one of the most turbulent phases in Indian parliamentary history.

Following the 1991 general elections for the 10th Lok Sabha, the Congress (I) emerged as the single largest party, though it fell short of a majority. Invited by the President to form the government, the Congress, under the leadership of P.V. Narasimha Rao, took charge at the Centre. His appointment came under extraordinary circumstances: the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had left the party without a clear leader, paving the way for the nearly-retired Rao to step in.

Vinay Sitapati, in his book Half Lion: How PV Narasimha Rao Transformed India, describes Rao as a master tactician who understood the realities of Indian politics in the 1990s, where negotiation, persuasion, and even money often played a decisive role in securing political survival.

2. The No-Confidence Motions

The “No Confidence Motion” is a crucial parliamentary tool used in the Lok Sabha to test whether the Council of Ministers still enjoys the confidence of the House. If 51% of the members vote in favour of the motion, it is deemed that the government has lost its majority and must resign.

During the tenure of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, his minority government faced several such challenges. The first no-confidence motion came in July 1991, shortly after he assumed office, but his government managed to survive. In 1992, a second floor test once again questioned his authority.

However, the most critical test of Rao's political survival came on 28 July 1993, when CPI(M) leader Ajoy Mukhopadhyay moved a third no-confidence motion. At the time, the Congress (I) government had only 251 MPs supporting it—14 votes short of the 265 required to defeat the motion and maintain a majority. To secure the numbers, Rao reportedly worked behind the scenes to win over factions of the opposition, including Ajit Singh’s Janata Dal (Ajit).

Allegations later emerged that four Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MPs were bribed to vote in favour of Rao’s government. The motion was eventually defeated by a narrow margin of 265–251 votes, one of the closest escapes in India’s parliamentary history. While Congress members celebrated the survival of the government, Rao himself maintained a public silence on the matter.

3. The Bribery Scandal

Three years later, in 1996, the bribery scandal exploded when former JMM MP Shailendra Mahato disclosed that over ₹3 crore had been paid to JMM MPs, including party chief Shibu Soren, to secure their support during the 1993 vote. This revelation led to a CBI investigation that named several senior politicians, including P.V. Narasimha Rao, Satish Sharma, Ajit Singh, Bhajan Lal, V.C. Shukla, R.K. Dhawan, and Lalit Suri, as accused in the case.

At the time of the 1993 no-confidence motion, the effective strength of the Lok Sabha was 528 members. The ruling Congress (I), led by Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, had 251 MPs—14 short of the 265 votes required to defeat the motion and retain a simple majority. It was alleged that Rao and his co-accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to bribe MPs. Four Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs—Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Shailendra Mahato, and Simon Marandi—were alleged to have accepted illegal gratification in exchange for voting against the motion.

Ravinder Kumar, President of the Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, filed a formal complaint with the CBI alleging a conspiracy involving Rao and other Congress leaders to secure votes through bribery. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the CBI did not initially register an FIR. Ravinder Kumar then approached the Delhi High Court, which directed the CBI to initiate a formal investigation. Following this order, an FIR was finally registered against Rao and other accused politicians.

In 1996, the CBI filed a charge sheet in a Special Court under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for criminal conspiracy and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for bribery. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court as P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. State.

See Also:

4. The Supreme Court Case and 1998 Verdict

The case raised a crucial question: Could lawmakers be prosecuted for accepting or offering bribes linked to their votes in Parliament, or were they protected under Article 105(2) of the Constitution?

Article 105(2) grants Members of Parliament immunity from legal proceedings for anything said or any vote cast in Parliament. Petitioners argued that even if money was exchanged to influence voting, such acts could not be subject to court proceedings and could only be treated as a breach of privilege within Parliament.

The Supreme Court, in a controversial 3:2 majority judgment in 1998, held that immunity under Article 105(2) applied to MPs for votes cast in Parliament. This meant that lawmakers who voted after allegedly accepting bribes could not be prosecuted. However, those who accepted bribes but abstained from voting, such as Ajit Singh, were not protected. This judgment created a long-lasting precedent that shielded legislators from criminal prosecution in similar cases for more than two decades.

5. The Sita Soren Bribery Case

In 2012, Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), was accused of accepting a bribe from an independent candidate in exchange for casting her vote in his favour during the Rajya Sabha elections. However, due to the open ballot system, she ultimately cast her vote for her own party’s candidate instead.

Soren approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking to quash the criminal charges filed against her under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arguing that she was protected under Article 194(2) and article 105(2) of the Constitution. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1998 judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, she contended that lawmakers enjoyed absolute protection for all acts connected to parliamentary proceedings.

The High Court rejected her plea in 2014, holding that immunity could not extend to cases where there was no nexus between the alleged bribe and the vote cast. Soren appealed the decision in 2019, leading the Supreme Court to revisit the scope of parliamentary immunity in bribery cases.

6. The 2024 Supreme Court Verdict

On 4 March 2024, a seven-judge Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered a landmark judgment ending decades of immunity enjoyed by lawmakers in bribery cases. The court unanimously held that parliamentary privilege under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution does not extend to acts of bribery, overturning the 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State ruling.

The Court clarified that parliamentary privilege exists to ensure free and fair legislative functioning, not to provide lawmakers with a shield for corruption. The bench stated that bribery is a criminal act that undermines democracy and cannot be legitimised under the guise of legislative immunity. With this historic verdict, MPs and MLAs can now be prosecuted for accepting bribes, even if the act is linked to their legislative duties, marking a major step toward accountability and integrity in Indian politics. [Rh/VP]

Also Read: