Upholding Parliamentary Privileges: Understanding Constitutional Provisions and Judicial Precedents

The Indian Parliament and State Legislatures derive their privileges from the Constitution, primarily outlined in Article 105 and 194, respectively. While certain privileges such as freedom of speech within these legislative bodies are explicitly mentioned, the majority remain unspecified, leaving room for interpretation and codification by future lawmakers. Until codified, privileges akin to those of the British House of Commons as of 1950 are adopted by India's Parliament and State Legislatures.

The Power to Punish Contempt

A crucial privilege exercised by the British House of Commons—and extended to Indian legislative bodies—is the authority to penalize members and non-members for contempt or breach of privilege. The House of Commons claims superiority over common law courts in this regard, rejecting any external interference. While Indian legislatures possess similar powers, questions arise regarding potential conflicts with fundamental rights under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

A recent Supreme Court case, Sita Soren v. Union of India, highlighted that Parliament or State Legislatures cannot unilaterally determine their privileges and may only claim those essential for their functioning. This underscores the need for a balance between legislative powers and constitutional rights.

Constitutional Provisions

Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution delineate the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament and State Legislatures. While freedom of speech within these bodies is guaranteed subject to constitutional provisions, other privileges are conferred on the legislative houses, their members, and committees. The adoption of the privileges of the House of Commons underscores the conscious decision of the Constitution's framers.

During the Constituent Assembly Debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar highlighted the two categories of privileges: those of individual members and those of the legislature as a whole, including the power to convict for contempt. The adoption of the House of Commons' privileges was seen as the most practical approach, given the absence of feasible alternatives.

Impact of the 44th Amendment

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 amended Articles 105(3) and 194(3), replacing references to the House of Commons with "that House" and extending privileges to those existing immediately before the amendment. This cosmetic change did not alter the essence of parliamentary privileges, which continue to mirror those of the House of Commons.

Judicial Interpretation and Challenges

The judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting and balancing parliamentary privileges with fundamental rights. The principle of harmonious construction requires that the general rights under Article 19 yield to the special privileges conferred on legislatures. However, exceptions may exist where legislative actions cannot be reasonably construed as contempt.

The Special Reference of 1964, while not binding precedent, addressed the scope of parliamentary privileges, emphasizing the supremacy of legislative powers within their domains. However, challenges persist, particularly regarding the power to commit for contempt without judicial interference.

Conclusion

Parliamentary privileges serve as essential tools for effective legislative functioning, ensuring the autonomy and integrity of the legislative process. While India's Constitution provides a framework for these privileges, judicial oversight remains critical to prevent overreach and protect fundamental rights. Upholding the delicate balance between legislative powers and individual liberties is essential for maintaining the strength and credibility of India's democratic institutions.