As per case facts, a 'No Confidence Motion' against the government was defeated due to an alleged criminal conspiracy involving bribing Members of Parliament to secure votes. Charge sheets were ... filed against the petitioner and others for their involvement. The Special Judge framed charges, rejecting arguments of parliamentary immunity and that MPs are not 'public servants'. The Delhi High Court affirmed these decisions, leading to this appeal. The question arose whether Article 105 of the Constitution confers immunity on Members of Parliament from criminal prosecution for bribery, and whether an MP falls within the definition of a 'public servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Finally, the Supreme Court held that MPs are not immune under Article 105 for bribery and are indeed 'public servants' under the 1988 Act. However, the prosecution of MPs who received bribes cannot proceed due to the current absence of a competent authority to grant sanction. Trials for bribe-givers and an abstaining MP will proceed, and the Court urged Parliament to address this legislative gap.