Upholding Parliamentary Privileges: Understanding Constitutional provisions and case law

The Indian Parliament and State Legislatures derive their privileges from the Constitution, primarily outlined in Articles 105 and 194, respectively. While certain privileges such as freedom of speech are explicitly mentioned within these legislatures, most remain unspecified, leaving room for interpretation and codification by future legislators. Pending codification, privileges similar to those of the British House of Representatives post-1950 are expected to be adopted by the Indian Parliament and state legislatures.

An important privilege exercised by the British House of Representatives and extended to the Indian Parliament is the power to punish members and non-members for disregard or breach of privilege. The House of Representatives claims superiority over the common law courts in this regard and rejects any interference from outside. The Indian Parliament also has similar powers, but questions arise regarding possible clashes with fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Also Read: NDA nominee Om Birla elected as Speaker of Lok Sabha

A recent Supreme Court case, Sita Soren v. Union of India, highlighted that Parliament or state assemblies cannot unilaterally determine their prerogatives and can only assert those which are essential for their functioning. This highlights the need for a balance between legislative powers and constitutional rights. Constitutional Provisions:

Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution lay down the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament and the State Legislatures. While freedom of speech in these bodies is guaranteed by constitutional provisions, other privileges are also granted to the Legislative Assembly, its members and committees. The acceptance of the privileges of the House of Representatives highlights the conscious decision of the Framers of the Constitution.

During the debates in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasised that there are two categories of privileges: the privileges of individual members and the privileges of the legislature as a whole, including the power to convict in court. Given the absence of a viable alternative, the acceptance of the privileges of the House of Representatives was considered the most practical approach. Impact of 44th Amendment:

The 44th Amendment in 1978 amended Articles 105(3) and 194(3) by replacing the reference to the House of Representatives with "this House" and expanding the privileges that existed immediately before the amendment. This cosmetic change does not change the nature of Parliamentary privileges, which remain at par with those of the House of Representatives.

Also Read: Opposition stages protest outside parliament over pro-tem speaker appointment

The judiciary plays an important role in interpreting Parliamentary privileges and balancing them with fundamental rights. The principle of harmonious interpretation requires that the general rights under Article 19 be superseded by the special privileges of the legislature. However, there may be exceptions where a legislative measure cannot reasonably be construed as contempt. The 1964 Special Report, though not a binding precedent, noted the scope of parliamentary privileges and highlighted the primacy of legislative power in that domain. However, challenges remain, especially with regard to the power to sue for contempt of court without judicial intervention.

Parliamentary privileges are an important tool for the effective functioning of legislation and ensure the autonomy and integrity of the law-making process. Though the Indian Constitution provides a framework for these privileges, judicial review remains crucial to prevent abuse and protect fundamental rights. Maintaining a delicate balance between legislative powers and individual liberties is crucial to maintaining the strength and credibility of India’s democratic system.