The Supreme Court in Sita Soren v. Union of India overruled the majority opinion in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, holding that the offence of bribery by Members of Parliament is not protected by parliamentary immunity. Even though the judgement was positively received, this essay argues that the case is microcosmic of the dangers of courts speaking over the text of the Constitution in order to reach conclusions amenable to its conscience and public opinion. The Court makes grave errors in its interpretation of Article 105(2) of the Constitution of India, conflating the qualitative differences between two separate provisions, missing an opportunity to correct the position of law after P.V. Narasimha Rao. The essay argues that the Court’s attempt at watering down the protection under Article 105(2) is perilous in the backdrop of the backsliding of investigative agencies. Further, The Court turned the constitutional priorities on their head by ruling out any presumptive immunity to the accused Member of Parliament under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) ignoring the drift and “gaze” of the provision. Finally, the essay presents a test that ought to be applied where legislative immunity is claimed.