As per case facts, a 'No Confidence Motion' was moved against the government in 1993. A complaint was later filed alleging a criminal conspiracy by P.V. Narsimha Rao and others ... to bribe Members of Parliament to defeat this motion. The CBI filed charge sheets, and charges were framed by the Special Judge. Appellants challenged the jurisdiction, claiming immunity under Article 105(2) for parliamentary privileges and arguing that an MP is not a 'public servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986, and that no sanction for prosecution was obtained. Both the Special Judge and the Delhi High Court rejected these arguments. The question arose whether a Member of Parliament can claim immunity from bribery prosecution under Article 105 of the Constitution and whether they are "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986. Finally, the Supreme Court held that Article 105(2) does not grant immunity for bribery, as accepting a bribe is an independent criminal act not protected by parliamentary privileges. The Court affirmed that a Member of Parliament is a "public servant" under the 1988 Act due to holding public office and performing public duties. To ensure fair process, the prosecuting agency must obtain permission from the Chairman of Rajya Sabha or Speaker of Lok Sabha before filing a charge-sheet against a Member of Parliament for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.