Parliamentary Privileges in India

Parliamentary privileges refer to the special rights and immunities granted to members of Parliament (MPs) and legislative bodies to ensure they function independently and effectively. These privileges protect legislators from legal action for actions taken in their official capacity, allowing them to debate freely, express opinions, and perform legislative functions without fear of external pressure.

The concept of parliamentary privileges is essential for maintaining the separation of powers between the legislature, judiciary, and executive. These privileges are meant to protect the dignity and authority of legislative institutions while ensuring that legislators can act in the public interest without undue influence.

In this article, we will explore the meaning, types, constitutional provisions, and legal framework governing parliamentary privileges. Later, in Part 2, we will discuss landmark cases, criticisms, relevance, and the balance between privileges and fundamental rights.

Table of Contents

What Are Parliamentary Privileges?

Parliamentary privileges are special rights and immunities granted to members of Parliament (MPs) and state legislatures to ensure that they can perform their duties without external interference. These privileges are essential to safeguard legislative independence and uphold democratic governance.

Key Features of Parliamentary Privileges

Protection from Legal Action – MPs and legislators cannot be sued or prosecuted for statements made or actions taken in Parliament.
Freedom of Speech – Members have the right to express their views freely in parliamentary debates.
Exemption from Court Proceedings – No court can question parliamentary proceedings.
Right to Regulate Own Affairs – Parliament and legislatures can control their own procedures and punish members for misconduct.
Privilege Over Contempt – Legislatures can punish individuals for breach of privilege if they undermine the dignity of the House.

These privileges ensure that legislators can work without external threats, promoting a robust and independent parliamentary system.

Types of Parliamentary Privileges

Parliamentary privileges are broadly classified into two categories:

1. Collective Privileges (For the House as a Whole)

These privileges belong to Parliament or the legislature as an institution and ensure that the House functions smoothly. They include:

Right to Exclusive Control – Parliament regulates its own proceedings without interference from the executive or judiciary.
Right to Punish for Contempt – The legislature can punish individuals (including members, officials, or outsiders) for actions that disrespect or obstruct parliamentary proceedings.
Right to Hold Secret Proceedings – In special cases, Parliament can conduct confidential sessions to protect national security or sensitive information.
Right to Ensure Attendance – Legislators can be compelled to attend parliamentary sessions, ensuring accountability.

2. Individual Privileges (For Members of Parliament)

These privileges apply to individual MPs and legislators to protect their freedom and independence. They include:

Freedom of Speech (Article 105) – MPs have the right to speak freely in Parliament without fear of defamation or legal consequences.
Freedom from Arrest – MPs cannot be arrested during a parliamentary session or 40 days before and after its commencement, except for serious crimes (e.g., treason, felony).
Exemption from Jury Duty – MPs cannot be forced to serve as jurors while Parliament is in session.
Right to Receive Information – MPs have the right to access government documents and information related to legislative matters.

These privileges empower legislators to perform their duties effectively, without fear of legal or political retaliation.

Constitutional and Legal Provisions on Parliamentary Privileges

Parliamentary privileges are enshrined in the Indian Constitution (Articles 105 & 194) and legal frameworks governing legislative bodies.

1. Article 105 of the Indian Constitution (For Parliament)

Article 105 grants the following privileges to Members of Parliament (MPs):

Freedom of speech in Parliament.
Immunity from legal proceedings for statements made in the House.
Parliament’s power to define privileges through legislation.

2. Article 194 of the Indian Constitution (For State Legislatures)

Article 194 grants similar privileges to Members of State Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), ensuring their independence in state governance.

3. Contempt of Parliament

Legislatures can take action for contempt of Parliament, which includes:

Obstructing parliamentary work.
Publishing misleading reports about legislative proceedings.
Insulting MPs or legislative institutions.

Parliament can summon, warn, fine, or even imprison individuals found guilty of contempt.

4. Statutory and Judicial Developments

The Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 – Lists offices that do not disqualify an MP or MLA from holding legislative positions.
Judicial Interpretations – Courts have ruled that parliamentary privileges cannot override fundamental rights, ensuring a balance between legislative independence and democratic accountability.

Landmark Cases on Parliamentary Privileges

Several significant court cases have shaped the interpretation and application of parliamentary privileges in India and other democratic nations. These cases highlight the conflict between privileges and fundamental rights, the judiciary’s role in reviewing parliamentary actions, and the limits of legislative immunity.

1. Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha (1959)

The Editor of the “Searchlight” newspaper published reports of Assembly debates that contained critical statements against the government.
The Bihar Legislative Assembly charged him with breach of privilege for publishing remarks without permission.
The Supreme Court ruled that parliamentary privileges under Article 194 override the right to freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) when they conflict.

2. Keshav Singh Case (1965)

Keshav Singh, a common citizen, criticized a legislator and was held guilty of contempt by the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
The Assembly ordered his imprisonment, but the Allahabad High Court granted him bail, stating that the order was unconstitutional.
The Assembly then summoned High Court judges for contempt, leading to intervention by the Supreme Court.
The ruling established that legislative privileges cannot interfere with the judiciary’s power of judicial review.

3. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998)

Several Members of Parliament (MPs) were accused of accepting bribes for voting in Parliament.
The Supreme Court held that MPs are immune from prosecution for votes cast in Parliament under Article 105(2), even if they took bribes.
This judgment was controversial as it appeared to allow corruption under the guise of legislative immunity.

4. Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007)

MPs were caught in a sting operation accepting bribes for raising questions in Parliament.
The Lok Sabha expelled them, and the MPs challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.
The court ruled that parliamentary privileges are subject to judicial review, especially in cases of corruption or illegality.

These landmark cases highlight that while parliamentary privileges protect legislative independence, they cannot be misused to shield lawmakers from accountability.

Criticisms of Parliamentary Privileges

Although parliamentary privileges are essential for legislative functioning, they have been criticized for potential misuse and lack of clear legal boundaries.

1. Lack of Codification

In India, parliamentary privileges are not fully codified, meaning they rely on customs, precedents, and interpretations.
This creates ambiguity and allows legislatures to use privileges selectively.

2. Conflict with Fundamental Rights

Sometimes, parliamentary privileges clash with fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech (Article 19) and equality before law (Article 14).
Example: In M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, the Supreme Court ruled that privileges override freedom of speech, raising concerns about press freedom.

3. Possibility of Abuse

Legislatures have wide discretion in defining contempt and breach of privilege, which can lead to misuse against journalists, citizens, or political opponents.
Example: Several journalists have faced privilege motions for exposing corruption in legislative bodies.

4. Immunity from Criminal Prosecution

The P.V. Narasimha Rao case allowed MPs immunity from prosecution for bribery-related votes, setting a dangerous precedent.
Critics argue that privileges should not protect corruption or criminal misconduct.

5. Judicial Review Limitations

Courts have ruled that legislative privileges are subject to judicial review, but the extent of this review is unclear.
This creates a grey area where legislatures may claim absolute immunity in certain cases.

Relevance of Parliamentary Privileges in Modern Democracy

Despite criticisms, parliamentary privileges remain essential for maintaining legislative independence and democratic governance.

1. Ensuring Free and Fair Debates

Privileges allow legislators to debate and express opinions freely without fear of prosecution.
This is vital in representative democracies, where MPs voice the concerns of their constituents.

2. Protecting Legislators from Executive Interference

In many countries, executive overreach threatens legislative autonomy.
Parliamentary privileges ensure that MPs and MLAs cannot be arbitrarily arrested or harassed by the government.

3. Balancing Privileges with Accountability

While privileges protect legislative integrity, they must not be used as a shield for corruption.
Legal reforms are needed to ensure privileges serve democracy rather than individual lawmakers’ interests.

Need for Codification of Parliamentary Privileges

Many legal experts argue that codifying parliamentary privileges will help in:
✅ Defining clear boundaries to prevent misuse.
✅ Ensuring privileges do not violate fundamental rights.
✅ Allowing judicial review in case of abuse.

Several countries, such as the United Kingdom, have codified their parliamentary privileges, ensuring transparency and accountability.

Steps Towards Codification in India

Various committees and legal experts have recommended codification, but no law has been passed yet.
The NCRWC (National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, 2002) suggested defining privileges clearly through legislation.

Codification would strike a balance between legislative autonomy and citizens’ rights, ensuring a strong and accountable democracy.

Comparison of Parliamentary Privileges in India and Other Countries

Feature	India	United Kingdom	United States
Source of Privileges	Constitution (Articles 105 & 194)	Bill of Rights, 1689	U.S. Constitution
Freedom from Arrest	Yes (limited)	Yes (limited)	Yes (for legislative work)
Codification	No (largely based on customs)	Yes	Yes
Judicial Review	Limited	Allowed	Allowed

The UK and US models show that codified privileges provide greater clarity and accountability, while India’s uncodified system allows more discretion.

Conclusion

Parliamentary privileges are crucial for ensuring that legislators can function independently, free from external pressure. However, the absence of codification, potential misuse, and conflicts with fundamental rights have raised concerns.

To ensure that parliamentary privileges strengthen democracy rather than weaken accountability, the following reforms are necessary:
✅ Codification of privileges to remove ambiguity.
✅ Judicial oversight to prevent misuse.
✅ Balance between privileges and fundamental rights to ensure citizens’ freedoms are protected.

A well-structured legal framework can help maintain the dignity of legislative institutions while ensuring transparency and accountability in democratic governance.