It was a judgment that has rankled for years. The artificial distinction that the Supreme Court of India made over 25 years ago between ‘bribe-givers’ and ‘bribe-takers’ in the infamous JMM bribery case left many aghast that those who paid crores of rupees to MPs for voting in favour of the P.V. Narasimha Rao government in a no-confidence motion were to be prosecuted for corruption, but those who took the money were immune from prosecution. The reason was that those who had voted for money enjoyed the constitutional privilege of not being subject to any legal consequence for “anything said or any vote given in Parliament”.