LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES

1. Introduction
Article 105 and Article 194 grant privileges or advantages to the members of the parliament so
that they can perform their duties or can function properly without any hindrances. Such
privileges are granted as they are needed for democratic functioning. These powers, privileges
and immunities should be defined by the law from time-to-time. These privileges are considered
as special provisions and have an overriding effect in conflict.

2. Privileges mentioned in the constitution

• Freedom of speech and publication under parliamentary authority
This is defined under Article 105(1) and clause (2). It gives the members of parliament freedom
of speech under clause (1) and provides under Article 105(2) that no member of parliament will
be liable in any proceedings before any Court for anything said or any vote given by him in the
Parliament or any committee thereof. Also, no person will be held liable for any publication of
any report, paper, votes or proceedings if the publication is made by the parliament or any
authority under it.

The same provisions are stated under Article 194, in that members of the legislature of a state is
referred instead of members of parliament.

Both the Articles, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 105 of the Constitution talks about freedom of
speech. Article 105 applies to the members of parliament not subjected to any reasonable
restriction. Article19(1)(a) applies to citizens but are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Article 105 is an absolute privilege given to the members of the parliament but this privilege can
be used in the premises of the parliament and not outside the parliament.

If any statement or anything is published outside the parliament by any member and if that is
reasonably restricted under freedom of speech then that published article or statement will be
considered as defamatory.

Case Law
Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh v. Hari Sadhan Mukherjee And Others, AIR 1961 SC 613
The appellant is an elected member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. The appellant had
an intention to ask certain questions in the assembly and therefore he gave the notice for the
same. The questions to be asked in the assembly were refused in compliance with the rules of
procedure for the conduct of the business in the assembly. But the appellant published those
questions he was not allowed to ask in the assembly in a local newspaper called JANAMAT.
The first respondent, who was then functioning as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate and because of
whose conduct the matter of questions arose, filed a complaint against the appellant and two
others, the editor and the printer and publisher of those questions.

The petition contained the fact that the appellant had made slanderous accusations against him
with an intention to be read by the members of the public. These accusations were false and the
appellant published them, having an intention of harming the reputation of the complainant. He
also alleged that publishing such false questions in the journal first requires prior permission by
the government in instituting the legal proceeding against the public servant.

In this case, it was held that the provisions of Article 194 even though disallowed by the speaker
were a part of the proceedings of the house and publication for the same will not attract any
sections of the Indian Penal Code.

He will not be prosecuted, as Article 194(1) not only gives them freedom of speech but also give
the right to ask questions and publish them in the press.

P.V. NARSIMHA RAO v. STATE (1998)

The facts of the case are – some of the MP’s received bribes to vote against the motion of no-
confidence against the Prime Minister P.V. Narsimha Rao. He was charged under IPC and
Prevention of Corruption Act on the grounds that he bribed some MPs to vote against the no-
confidence motion when he was serving as the Prime Minister. In this case, the question arose
that under Article 105(2) does any member of parliament have any immunity to protect himself
in criminal proceedings against him?

It was held by the majority of the Court that under Article 105(2) the members of the parliament
will get immunity and thus, the activity of taking bribe by the MP’s will get immunity despite
anything said by them or any vote given by them in the Parliament. The Court further explained
that the word “anything” here will be interpreted as a wider term. The Court interpreted the term
“anything” in a wider sense and did not prosecute P.V. Narsimha Rao.

• Power to make rules-

The Parliament has the power, which is given by the Constitution of India, to make its own rules
but this power is subjected to the provisions of the Constitution. Though it can make its own
rules, the rules should not be made for its own benefit. If they make any rule which infringes any
provision of the Constitution then it would be held as void.

• Internal independence/autonomy-
For the effective working of both the houses of parliament and their members, internal
independence should exist without the interference of any outside party or person. The houses
can deal with their respective issues internally without any interference of the statutory
authority. The Indian Judiciary might not interfere with the proceedings or issues dealt in the
parliament or by the members in the course of their business. Nevertheless, it may interfere in the
proceedings if it is found to be illegal or unconstitutional.

• Freedom from being arrested

The member of parliament cannot be arrested 40 days before and 40 days after the session of the
house. If in any case a member of Parliament is arrested within this period, the concerned person
should be released in order to attend the session freely.

• Right to exclude strangers from its proceedings and hold secret sessions
The object of including this right was to exclude any chances of daunting or threatening any of
the members. The strangers may attempt to interrupt the sessions.

• Right to prohibit the publication of its reporters and proceedings

The right has been granted to remove or delete any part of the proceedings took place in the
house.

• Right to regulate internal proceedings

The House has the right to regulate its own internal proceedings and also has the right to call for
the session of the Legislative assembly. But it does not have any authority in interrupting the
proceedings by directing the speaker of the assembly.

• Right to punish members or outsiders for contempt

This right has been given to every house of the Parliament. If any of its members or maybe non-
members commit contempt or breach any of the privileges given to him/her, the houses may
punish the person.The houses have the right to punish any person for any contempt made against
the houses in the present or in the past.

• Privileges and fundamental rights

Part III of the Constitution contains fundamental rights wherein Article 19(1)(a) grants freedom
of speech to the citizens. It is subjected to reasonable restrictions. These restrictions are:-

• Sovereignty and integrity of India should be maintained,

• Security of the states should be maintained,
• Public order should not be disturbed,
• Decency and morality should be maintained,
• Defamation should be avoided,
• Incitement to an offence should be avoided,
• Contempt of court should be avoided,
• Friendly relations with foreign states should be maintained.
Where on the other hand the members of parliament have been granted powers, privileges etc.
their powers or privileges are absolute unlike fundamental rights for the citizens.

The Parliament enjoys mostly all the supreme powers while making laws and exercise its power
to the best possible extent because of the absolute nature of its powers and privileges.

The powers of the legislators are too wide such as they decide their own privileges, include
points which can breach the laid down privileges, and also decide the punishment for that breach.

Article 105(3) and Article 194(3) states that the parliament should from time to time define the
laws or pass the laws on the powers, privileges and immunities of the members of the parliament
and members of the legislative assembly.

Case Law
Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan and the State of U.P AIR 1952
The facts of the case:- The U.P. Legislative Assembly issued a warrant against the Home
Minister who was arrested from his residence in Bombay on the ground of contempt of the
house. The Home Minister under Article 32 applied a writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that
his detention under Article 22(2) violates his fundamental right.

The Supreme Court accepted the arguments and ordered his release according to Article 22(2).
He was not presented before the magistrate within 24hrs of his arrest or detention. Not presenting
him before the magistrate resulted in the violation of his fundamental right under Article 22(2).
In this case, it was opined that Article 105 and Article 194 cannot supersede the fundamental
rights.

MSM Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha AIR 1959 SC395

The facts of the case:-the petitioner is the editor of the English Daily newspaper of Patna. He
published a report on the proceedings of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and the reports were
said to be removed by the speaker.

The editor was presented before the Legislative Assembly to give reasons for the breach of
privilege committed by him. At first, he was held guilty for his conduct. Then, in an appeal, the
editor under Article 19 (1)(a) argued that he has a right to freedom of speech. But the Court
denied all the arguments based on Article 19(1)(a) as it is a general provision and Article 194 is a
special provision. If at any time both of these articles come under any conflict the latter will
prevail over the former. As the general provision cannot overrule the effect of the special
provision.

It has also been suggested that if both Articles, Articles 19(1)(a) and 194, are in conflict, the rule
of Harmonious Construction (every statute should be read as a whole and interpretations
consistent of all the provisions of the statute should be adopted when in conflict of any statute or
any part of the statute) should be applied.

• Privileges and the law courts

Article 143 confers the power on the President to consult the Supreme Court if at any time it
appears to the President that a question of fact or a law arises or may arise in future. Also, such
questions must be of public importance or it must be advantageous to seek the opinion of the
Supreme Court. And after such hearing, if the court thinks it relevant, it may give its opinion to
the President.

The house of parliament though have a lot of powers, privileges and immunities but despite all
these advantages it cannot act or perform similar to a Court. The Courts are the one who
interprets the laws or acts passed by the parliament. For instance, if any offence is committed
even in the house of parliament the jurisdiction vests with the ordinary Courts.

Case Law
In Keshava Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly
The facts of the case – Keshava Singh, who was a non-legislative member of the assembly,
printed and published a pamphlet. Because of the printing and publishing of the pamphlet, the
Speaker of the U.P. Legislative assembly criticized him for contempt and breach of the privilege
of one of the members. On the same day, Mr Keshava being present in the house committed
another breach by his conduct.

As a result of his conduct in the house, the speaker directed him to be imprisoned, issued a
warrant for the same and ordered his detention in jail for 7 days.

Under Article 226, a writ of Habeas Corpus was applied in his petition. The petition claimed that
the detention in jail is illegal and is done with malafide intentions. The petition also stated that he
was not given any chance to explain or defend himself. The petition was heard by the 2 judges
who gave them interim bail.

As a result of the decision in Keshava’s case, the assembly passed a new resolution.

In this resolution, it was laid that the 2 judges entertained the writ filed by the petitioner and his
lawyer. In its resolution, the assembly issued a contempt notice to present the two judges and the
lawyer before the house and explain the reasons for their conduct. It also ordered that Keshava
should be taken into custody. Under this, they moved petitions under 226 and filed a writ of
mandamus before the Allahabad High Court to set aside the resolution passed by the assembly.

It was held by the majority of the Supreme Court that the conduct of the 2 judges does not
amount to contempt.
The Court further explained that if in the matters of privileges stated under Article 194(3) then
the house will be considered as the sole and exclusive judge provided that it should be stated in
that. But if any such privilege is not mentioned in the article then it’s the Court who has to decide
upon it.

Conclusion
After analysing Article 105 and 194, one can clearly infer their absoluteness. These special
provisions are granted to the Parliament for its effective functioning. These articles also impose
duties upon them to make effective laws which do not harm the rights of others. The parliament
or the Legislative Assembly though can exercise their powers, privileges and immunities, cannot
act as an ordinary Court of justice.