Duality of Sir Amitabh in Shahenshah, (1998) as a Corrupt-Comic Police Officer and a Costumed Crime-Buster compelled many to wonder, what did Sir Amitabh do with his illegal gratifications? No matter what you answer, acceptance of those gratifications were without law.

Court has not refrained from reconsidering a prior construction, if it proves to be unsound, unworkable, or contrary to public interest.

P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, (1998) 4 SCC 626 creates an ‘artificial distinction’ between those who receive an illegal gratification and perform their end and those who do not. Such an interpretation belies Articles 105 and 194 and results in a ‘paradoxical outcome’. Legislators are conferred with immunity when they accept a bribe and follow through by voting. But, a Legislator is prosecuted when it accepts a bribe and eventually decides to vote independently.

Members engaging in ‘bribery’ commit a crime which is unrelated to their ability to vote or to make a decision on their vote.

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Sita Soren v Union of India, [Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2019].