QUE : “Parliamentary Privileges are essential for the independent and effective functioning of the Legislature, yet they are not absolute. In this context, explain the constitutional provisions regarding Parliamentary Privileges under Article 105. How does the judiciary act as a check on the misuse of these privileges?”

ANSWER

1. Introduction

Article 105 of the Constitution grants Parliament and its Members certain powers, privileges, and immunities—collectively termed Parliamentary Privileges—to ensure the dignity, authority, and unobstructed functioning of the House. However, these privileges are subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review to prevent arbitrariness.

2. Body

Constitutional Provisions under Article 105

• Freedom of Speech (Art. 105(1)): MPs enjoy absolute freedom of speech inside the House, immune from court proceedings for anything said or any vote given (Art. 105(2)). This differs from Art. 19(1)(a) as it is absolute and subject only to House rules.
• Immunity from Legal Proceedings (Art. 105(2)): No MP is liable to any court proceedings in respect of publication of reports, papers, votes, or proceedings by or under the authority of either House.
• Codification Clause (Art. 105(3)): Until Parliament codifies privileges by law, the House enjoys the same privileges as the British House of Commons did on 26th January 1950.
• Extension to Non-Members (Art. 105(4)): Applies to persons entitled to speak in the House (e.g., Attorney General, Ministers).

Judicial Check on Misuse

• Subject to Fundamental Rights: In Keshav Singh Case (1965) and State of Kerala v. K. Ajith (2021), the Supreme Court held that privileges are subject to Fundamental Rights (Art. 21, 14). They cannot override the Right to Life or Equality.

• Judicial Review of Contempt: Courts can examine the validity of a contempt order if it suffers from mala fides, perversity, or violation of natural justice (Raja Ram Pal Case, 2007).

• No Immunity for Criminal Acts: In P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998) (JMM Bribery Case), the Court ruled bribery for speech/vote is not protected under Art. 105(2).

• Harmonious Construction: Judiciary balances Legislative privilege (Art. 105/194) with Citizen’s rights (Art. 32/226), ensuring privileges serve public interest, not personal impunity.

3. Conclusion

Parliamentary Privileges are a means to ensure legislative sovereignty, not an end to place legislators above the law. The evolving jurisprudence underscores that in a constitutional democracy, the “Keystone of the Constitution” (Rule of Law) binds the Legislature equally, necessitating the codification of privileges as envisaged under Article 105(3) to minimize conflict.