WHY THESE WERE NOT CODIFIED ?

• The powers, privileges and immunities will be same as that of the house of commons until no such
law is made defining these privileges.
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar - privileges are wide and difficult to explain, also it is not possible not practicable.
• Dr. Aiyyar – Can be codified only after in-detail knowledge of parliamentary procedue, and lack of
time
• Dr. Rajendra Prasad also called these privileges as a ‘temporary affair’.
• G.V. Mavlankar – difficulties will arise in case of changing circumstances
“the constitution has granted maximum possible privileges when the same are equated with those of the House
of Commons. The undertaking of legislation in respect thereof is, therefore not at all necessary as an attempt
at legislation would mean substantial curtailment of the privileges”
 LEGISLATION AND JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS
• Press Commission in 1954 recommended codification of parliamentary privileges.
• M.S. M. Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395
• Majority – When a specific statute is made by Legislation, that act would be subjected to Part- III.
• Minority – They are subjected to Part III. Also asked for codification to help citizens not to get entrapped in
legislative action due to unwritten law. Legislature have given time to parliament to make law and not an
option whether to make new law or not; and even if provide alternative, it would be against self-respect of
country to keep law as memory of slavery.

• 44th Amendement 1978

• Reference to House of Commons made indirect, yet necessary and inevitable.
• But, in no way necessity to codify privileges were minimized.
 REASONS TO SUPPORT CODIFICATION
• Preventing misuse – Unlimited powers for the legislators to mould privileges. codification is required to prevent misuse of
privileges by legislators and giving due consideration to citizen’s right to free speech. It will act as Lakshmana Rekha.
• VIP Culture – Today is the age of removal of VIP culture.
• Dual benefits - Also allows speaker to take action against unruly legislators.
• Temporary solution by constituent assembly – While framing the constitution, it was mentioned that privileges of Indian
legislators would remain similar to those of British house of commons, only till requisite laws were passed for the same. But
the legislators have chosen to maintain the status quo over this issue.
• Democratic ideals - Constructive criticism and dissent are the essence of a democracy. Restraining free speech of citizens is
against the ideals of democracy. It is Evasion of constitutional provisions and negation of rule of law, thus it against the very
principles of constitutionalism. (Idea of limited powers)
• Parliament has power to enact such law and India has now vast and sufficient experience and the intervening period has
passed long time ago.
• It has been codified in many countries like Kenya, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Australia, Canada etc.
• Uk itself is under review by Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege .
 OPPOSITION TO CODIFICATION
• Issue of sovereignty – Legislators argue that codification will harm sovereignty of
parliament
• Judicial scrutiny – Codification will make privileges subject to fundamental rights and
thus, judicial scrutiny. This may lead to judicial overreach.
• Parliament impartiality - Parliament is very jealous of its privileges and does not
want its curtailment, rather they want privileges to be flexible .
 SUGGESTIONS
• Formation of ethics committee.
• Speaker to take action against genuine derailment of parliament functioning.
• Similar to NJAC case
• When we are proceeding towards transparency in the functioning of the state, then parliament is also
one of the limbs of the state and cannot claim immunity for its sections which are in contravention or
encroach upon the fundamental rights of the citizens.
• Parliament being representative of the people should not become the master of the people by not
codifying the privileges