PARLIAMENTARY

PRIVILEGES
M.BIRUNTHADEVI
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
CHENNAI Dr.AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE,
PUDUPAKKAM
 Parliamentary Privileges
 Parliamentary privileges are the rights and immunities enjoyed by members of Parliament (MPs) in India to
enable them to discharge their duties and functions without interference or intimidation.
 Sources: These privileges are derived from the Constitution of India, parliamentary conventions, laws made by
the Parliament, rules of Lok sabha and Rajya sabha, and judicial interpretations. In India, the privileges of
members of Parliament are specified in the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok
Sabha, and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha.
 The privileges are claimed only when the person is a member of the house. As soon as he ends to be a member, the
privileges are said to be called off
 These privileges are essential so that the proceedings and functions can be made in a disciplined and undisturbed
manner.
 It is important to note that parliamentary privileges are not absolute and are subject to certain limits. For example,
MPs are expected to use their privileges responsibly and not abuse them for personal gain.
 Constitutional provisions related to parliamentary privileges

 Article 105: There shall be freedom of speech in Parliament. No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings
in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.

 Article 122: The validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question in court on the ground of any
alleged irregularity of procedure.

 Article 194: There shall be freedom of speech in the State Legislature. No member of the State Legislature shall be liable
to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the State Legislature or any
committee thereof.

 Article 212: The validity of any proceedings in the State Legislature shall not be called in question in court on the ground
of any alleged irregularity of procedure
 Classification of Parliamentary Privileges

 Individual Privileges: Individual privileges refer to the rights and immunities enjoyed by
members of the Indian Parliament and State Legislature to enable them to perform their duties
without fear of interference or prosecution.
 Collective Privileges: Collective privileges in India refer to the rights and immunities that are
enjoyed by both Houses of the Indian Parliament and State Legislature as a whole, as well as their
members and officers.
 Individual Privileges Collective Privileges
 Members cannot be arrested during the session of  Right to publish its reports, debates, and proceedings.
Parliament 40 days before the beginning and 40  Right to exclude strangers from its proceedings
days after the end of a session.
 Right to make rules to regulate its own procedure
 Members have freedom of speech in Parliament,
and no member is liable to any proceedings in any  Right to punish members as well as outsiders for
court breach of its privileges
 They are exempted from jury service when  The courts prohibited inquiring into the proceedings
Parliament is in session. of a House.
 No person can be arrested without the permission of
the presiding officer.
 Significance of Privileges in the Indian Parliament

 Parliamentary privileges are an important aspect of the legislative process, as they help to ensure
the independence and integrity of the legislative body. These privileges are intended to protect the
ability of lawmakers to speak and act freely.
 By providing immunity from arrest and legal process, parliamentary privileges allow members of
parliament to carry out their duties and responsibilities without fear of intimidation or interference.
 In addition, parliamentary privileges such as the privilege of confidentiality and the privilege of access
allow members of parliament to obtain and share information that may be crucial to their decision-
making processes.
 Overall, parliamentary privileges are an important part of the checks and balances that help to safeguard
the independence and integrity of democratic institutions and ensure that they can function effectively.
 Challenges and issues pertaining to Parliamentary Privileges

 Scope of privileges: One challenge is determining the scope and limits of parliamentary privileges. While
these privileges are intended to protect the independence and integrity of the legislative process, they can
also shield lawmakers from accountability and scrutiny.
 Conflict with constitutional principles: Parliamentary privileges may sometimes conflict with other
constitutional principles, such as equality before the law. For example, the privilege of immunity from arrest
and legal process may be seen as giving members of parliament special privileges that are not available to
other citizens.
 Misuse of privileges: There have been instances where parliamentary privileges have been misused by
lawmakers in India. For example, some lawmakers have used their freedom of speech privilege to make
inflammatory or offensive comments or false or baseless allegations.
 Lack of transparency: The process for claiming and enforcing parliamentary privileges in India can be
opaque and lacks transparency. This can make it difficult to hold lawmakers accountable for their actions and
undermine public trust in the legislative process.
 Inadequate oversight: There is a lack of adequate oversight and mechanisms for enforcing parliamentary
privileges in India. This can make it difficult to hold lawmakers accountable for abuses of these privileges
and can lead to a lack of confidence in the legislative process.
 Breach of Parliamentary Privilege
A breach of privilege in the Indian Parliament refers to a violation of the rights and
immunities of the Parliament or its members.
 Breach of privilege can include impeding the work of parliament, obstructing a member
from carrying out their duties, or disclosing confidential information discussed in
parliament without authorization.
 Breaches of privilege are considered a serious offense and can result in disciplinary
action being taken against the offending member or members.
 Punishment for Breach of
Privilege
The parliament is entitled to punish the outsiders or the members for any
breach of privilege by using any of the following:

Reprimand
Admonition
Imprisonment
 Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh v. Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others, AIR 1961 SC 613

The appellant is an elected member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. The appellant had an intention to ask certain
questions in the assembly and therefore he gave the notice for the same. The questions to be asked in the assembly were
refused in compliance with the rules of procedure for the conduct of the business in the assembly. But the appellant
published those questions he was not allowed to ask in the assembly in a local newspaper called JANAMAT.

The first respondent, who was then functioning as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate and because of whose conduct the matter of
questions arose, filed a complaint against the appellant and two others, the editor and the printer and publisher of those
questions.

The petition contained the fact that the appellant had made slanderous accusations against him with an intention to be read
by the members of the public. These accusations were false and the appellant published them, having an intention of
harming the reputation of the complainant. He also alleged that publishing such false questions in the journal first requires
prior permission by the government in instituting the legal proceeding against the public servant.

In this case, it was held that the provisions of Article 194 even though disallowed by the speaker were a part of the
proceedings of the house and publication for the same will not attract any sections of the Indian Penal Code. He will not be
prosecuted, as Article 194(1) not only gives them freedom of speech but also give the right to ask questions and publish
them in the press.
 P.V. NARSIMHA RAO v. STATE (1998)

 The facts of the case are – some of the MP’s received bribes to vote against the motion of no-
confidence against the Prime Minister P.V. Narsimha Rao. He was charged under IPC and
Prevention of Corruption Act on the grounds that he bribed some MPs to vote against the no-
confidence motion when he was serving as the Prime Minister. In this case, the question arose
that under Article 105(2) does any member of parliament have any immunity to protect himself
in criminal proceedings against him?
 It was held by the majority of the Court that under Article 105(2) the members of the parliament
will get immunity and thus, the activity of taking bribe by the MP’s will get immunity despite
anything said by them or any vote given by them in the Parliament. The Court further explained
that the word “anything” here will be interpreted as a wider term. The Court interpreted the term
“anything” in a wider sense and did not prosecute P.V. Narsimha Rao.
 Keshava Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly

• The facts of the case – Keshava Singh, who was a non-legislative member of the assembly, printed and published a pamphlet.
Because of the printing and publishing of the pamphlet, the Speaker of the U.P. Legislative assembly criticized him for contempt and
breach of the privilege of one of the members. On the same day, Mr Keshava being present in the house committed another breach by
his conduct. As a result of his conduct in the house, the speaker directed him to be imprisoned, issued a warrant for the same and
ordered his detention in jail for 7 days.
• Under Article 226, a writ of Habeas Corpus was applied in his petition. The petition claimed that the detention in jail is illegal and is
done with malafide intentions. The petition also stated that he was not given any chance to explain or defend himself. The petition
was heard by the 2 judges who gave them interim bail.
• As a result of the decision in Keshava’s case, the assembly passed a new resolution. In this resolution, it was laid that the 2 judges
entertained the writ filed by the petitioner and his lawyer. In its resolution, the assembly issued a contempt notice to present the two
judges and the lawyer before the house and explain the reasons for their conduct. It also ordered that Keshava should be taken into
custody. Under this, they moved petitions under 226 and filed a writ of mandamus before the Allahabad High Court to set aside the
resolution passed by the assembly.
• It was held by the majority of the Supreme Court that the conduct of the 2 judges does not amount to contempt. The Court further
explained that if in the matters of privileges stated under Article 194(3) then the house will be considered as the sole and exclusive
judge provided that it should be stated in that. But if any such privilege is not mentioned in the article then it’s the Court who has to
decide upon it.
THANK YOU