Relationship between parliamentary privileges and

fundamental rights

Introduction; India’s Constitution is the world’s longest Constitution. The Constitution has
been granted the power to make laws. The Indian Constitution has conceded the power of the
fundamental rights under Part-III to every citizen as it was deemed essential to protect the rights
and the liberties of the people against the encroachment of the power delegated to them by their
government. The fundamental rights have been granted to the citizens by the Constitution,
following the trend of modern democratic thought, and the recommendation being preserved that
it is an indispensable condition of a free society. On the other hand, there is a grant of
parliamentary privileges to the members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. These privileges
have been granted to the Parliament under various circumstances, which will be discussed in the
latter half of the article. Now the questions arise, as to whether the parliamentary privileges and
the fundamental rights are coherent to each other? Or whether there are any inflicting issues
between the two?

Relationship between the parliamentary

privileges and fundamental rights
parliamentary privileges are referred to as the rights and the immunities enjoyed by the members
of the Parliament in their capacity. The concept of parliamentary privileges has been adopted
from the British Parliament. 

Article 105 and Article 194 of the Constitution of India, impart privileges to the legislature in
India. Article 105 deals with the privileges related to the Parliament and Article 194 deals with
the privileges related to the State Legislatures.

Parliamentary privileges guaranteed by the

Constitution
Freedom of speech in the Parliament and the Legislature of
each state; The Article grants absolute immunity from the courts, for anything that is
being said during the course of the proceedings of the house or its committees

Right of Publication of its proceedings; Article 105(2) states that the

member of the Parliament shall not be liable to any proceedings in the courts, in respect of
anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or in any committee, and also shall not be
liable for any kind of a report published by or under the authority of either House of the
Parliament

Freedom of Arrest;

This privilege is well-established in the British House of Parliament. Also in India, a member of
the Parliament, cannot be arrested or imprisoned for any civil proceeding within 40 days before
and 40 days after the session of Parliament. If any member is arrested within this period, then he
shall be released immediately, so that he can attend the session of the Parliament. The privilege
does not extend to arrest or imprisonment on a criminal charge or for contempt of court or
preventive detention.

Right to exclude strangers from the proceedings of the Parliament and hold secret sessions

This right has also been adopted by the British Parliament in the Indian House of the Parliament.
The Parliament in India has the privilege to go into secret missions to discuss some important
matters, but only in exceptional circumstances because the voters must be informed of the doings
of their respective representatives in the Legislature.

Right to regulate internal proceedings

The House has an exclusive right to regulate its internal proceedings and to adjudicate upon such
matters. As stated under Article 122(1), the validity of the proceedings in the Parliament cannot
be called in question in a court law on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.

Right to punish members or outsiders for contempt

The Parliament has the power to punish a member or stranger for the ‘contempt of court’ or
for ‘breach of privilege’. A member may be suspended or expelled from the house or maybe
punished with imprisonmen

Areas of conflict between the two

There are two points of conflict that can be observed are:

1. Parliamentary privileges state that the members in the Parliament have the right to
prohibit publication of proceedings and reports in their respective sessions and the
freedom of press and speech, but this comes in conflict with the Fundamental Right of
the freedom of speech and expression, which states that it is a right guaranteed to
 express one’s convictions and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing, printing,
pictures or any other mode.
2. Parliamentary privileges are referred to as independent rights, with no reasonable
restrictions, but the fundamental right of Article 19(2) is an absolute individual right
with reasonable restrictions.
In accordance with these conflicts, the legal question and a judicial interpretation arise, as to
which of the two will prevail in case there is a conflict between the fundamental rights and
parliamentary privileges. Few questions that arise amidst the conflict between the two are: 

 If there is a conflict between the parliamentary privileges and the fundamental rights,
which one of the two will prevail?
 Can the parliamentary privileges be struck down if they are conflicting with the
fundamental rights? Or 
 Do the courts have the right to exercise their judicial power in the case of
parliamentary privileges?

Conclusion
thus, it can be concluded that there must be a balance between the fundamental rights of the
citizens and between the parliamentary privileges because the Parliament and the members of the
Legislative Assembly in most of the instances have misused their privileges which has a direct
impact on the democracy and in curtailing the voices of democracy.