Supreme Court strikes down parliamentarians' immunity for bribery; Has India shot itself in the foot with the AI-model permission decision?

Have you checked out our YouTube and Instagram channels yet? Follow us to get the same sharp analyses you love, on your social media.

Market Watch

• Indian benchmark indices ended the day in the green, with the Sensex up 66.14 points at 73,872.29, and the Nifty up 58.65 points at 22,397.
• Sectorally, Nifty Oil & Gas was the biggest winner, while Nifty Media was the biggest loser.

Supreme Court strikes down parliamentarians' immunity over bribery allegations

‘SWAGATAM’ responded Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the Supreme Court’s verdict which removed all parliamentary immunity to legislators who are accused of accepting bribes for votes. Just one trivia, in 2022, the Centre opposed the reconsideration of the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao case on legislative immunity grounds. Here’s a complete lowdown of the case, consequences, and the Supreme Court’s ‘clean up’ mode.

So what is the 1998 bribery-for-votes case? The bribery case stems from allegations that P V Narasimha Rao's minority government won the no-confidence motion in 1993 by bribing parliamentarians from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) to vote in favour of their government

• The CBI registered a case against them but when the case went to courtin a 3:2 majority decision, a five-judge Bench ruled in P V Narasimha Rao v State that legislators are immune from criminal prosecution for bribery related to their speech and votes in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.

Why is the Supreme Court reconsidering it? The case resurfaced in 2019 when a bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi decided to revisit the 1998 judgement due to its significant public importance.

• The pivotal question was subsequently referred to a seven-judge bench.
• The matter gained fresh attention when JMM MLA Sita Soren sought immunity in a bribe-for-vote scandal linked to a 2012 Rajya Sabha election.

The verdict: The seven-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud clarified that bribery is not protected under Articles 105 or 194 of the Constitution.

• The Supreme Court stressed that such immunity does not align with the essential functions of the legislature and that corruption undermines the democratic process.
• With this ruling, the Supreme Court has underscored the principle that parliamentary privilege does not grant lawmakers impunity from the law, ensuring that bribery for legislative actions is subject to legal scrutiny.

SC on 'clean up' mode: In recent times, the Supreme Court has been actively addressing electoral malpractices.

• Firstly, the apex court ruled against the Chandigarh ballot paper rigging case.
• Subsequently, the Supreme Court bench unanimously declared the Electoral Bonds scheme unconstitutional.?
• Now, following the reversal of the 1998 verdict, the Supreme Court is set to deliberate on the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in elections shortly.

Thing du jour

A marvel: Mumbai’s Gokhale Bridge where the connecting bridge is off by 2 metres is the latest tourist attraction.

Hi, I’m Gaurav Jeyaraman, the editor of this newsletter. We’d like to hear some feedback on our newsletter: what works and what doesn’t work? WhatsApp me directly and tell me what you think.

Has India shot itself in the foot with the AI-model permission decision?

The Indian government now requires tech companies to secure permission before deploying AI models, to prevent unreliable or under-trial AI from affecting users.

The context: The Indian government has decreed that IT companies must seek approval before releasing AI models and label them to inform users about their potential unreliability.

• The advisory was issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology mandates companies to disclose their inherent fallibility and obtain explicit government permission before their launch.
• If tech companies fail to comply with these provisions, they may face penal consequences, with the central government also developing an AI regulation framework slated for release by mid-2024 to manage AI-related risks.

The timing: This move came after Google’s Gemini called PM Modi a ‘fascist’ (Google has apologised for this btw). When we tested Ola's Krutrim, we found that it too gave problematic responses to many questions.

The confusion: Many view this move as two steps back by India, and as something that may slow down the rollout of AI and AI-assisted workflows.

The clarification (and more confusion): Following the outrage, the Minister of State for Electronics & Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar clarified that the generative AI disclosure rule will not apply to ‘startups’. However, this statement led to more confusion the definitions of the terms—‘significant platforms’, ‘large platforms’, or ‘untested’ according to the government are not available in the public domain. Even the minister’s second clarification did not help.

ICYMI

• Why are BJP leaders adding "Modi ka Parivaar" on their Social Media?
• EAM Jaishankar gave a befitting reply to Maldives President Muizzu calling India a 'bully'.
• New CCTV footage revealing how the Rameshwaram blast accused placed the bomb in the cafe.
• ISRO chief S Somanath narrated an invigorating tale of being diagnosed with cancer and returning to work 4 days later.
• Tamil Nadu minister Udhyanidhi Stalin who wanted to 'eradicate' Sanatan Dharma, gets a dressing down from the Supreme Court.
• Here’s how the Red Sea conflict between Iran-backed Houthi and Israel will impact your internet speed.
• Delhi government unveils the Mahila Saman Yojna under which women aged 18 or above will receive Rs 1,000 per month.