3 cases in SC today: Citizenship of illegal immigrants, SC-ST reservation in Lok Sabha-Assembly and exemption of MPs from criminal cases

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear three cases on September 20. This includes matters related to citizenship of illegal immigrants in Assam, extending the period of SC/ST reservation in Parliament and state assemblies, and giving freedom to MPs in criminal cases to vote or give speeches in the House. A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna, Justice MM Sundaresh, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Mishra will hear the case.

On 15 August 1985, the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi signed the Assam Accord. Illegal immigrants who came to the state from January 1, 1966, to March 25, 1971, were considered citizens there. These people had to register themselves as citizens of the country under Section 18. 17 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court on this issue, including the petition filed by Assam Public Works in 2009. A bench of five judges will hear the case today.

Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court regarding increasing the period of reservation for SC/ST in Parliament and State Assemblies from 10 years. In which the validity of the 79th Constitutional Amendment Act 1999, which provided reservation, was challenged. On September 2, 2003, the Supreme Court transferred all the petitions to a constitutional bench of five judges. Article 330 of the Constitution has a provision to give reservation to SC/ST in Parliament and Assembly.

Constitution Bench to consider whether increasing the period of reservation for SC/ST and Anglo-Indians from 50 years to 60 years under the 79th Constitutional Amendment is a violation of the right to equality?

The Constitution Bench will also consider another matter, which involves the question of whether an MP or MLA can claim immunity from a criminal case for delivering a speech or voting in the House. In the year 2019, the bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had sent the case to a larger bench.

In fact, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha member Sita Soren was accused of taking bribes to vote in favor of a particular candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections.

After this CBI had filed a charge sheet. Challenging this, Sita Soren filed a petition in the High Court. He argued - I have immunity under Article 194 (2) of the Constitution, 1950, which provides that 'no member of the Legislature of a State shall be entitled to give any notice in respect of anything said or voted in the Legislature. Will also not be liable for any proceedings in the court.

The High Court had rejected his petition. After this, he reached the Supreme Court. During the hearing, reliance was placed on the decision in PV Narasimha Rao vs. State, which had upheld the immunity enjoyed by MPs under Article 194(2) from prosecution in cases of taking bribes in connection with voting in Parliament. The Supreme Court then thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a Constitution bench, which could reconsider the decision given in PV Narasimha Rao vs. State.