Parliamentary Privileges

‘Privilege’ implies a special or exceptional right or freedom or an immunity

(exemption from some duty burden or liability ) enjoyed by a particular class of
persons.
A.105 & 194 of the Constitution relate to the privileges, powers and immunities
of Parliament and its members and the state legislature and their members
respectively.
A.105 (1)- There shall be freedom of Speech in parliament (Subject to
Constitution and rules and orders regarding the procedure of Parliament).
A.194 (1)- Similar Provision in the State Legislature.
A.105 (2)- No Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any
court in respect of any-thing said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any
committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the Publication
by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report , paper,
votes or proceedings.
 P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State(1998) 4 SCC 626

• Freedom of Speech in Parliament under Art.105(1) is absolute and

independent of Article. 19.
 Relevant case laws
• B.R.Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2001 SC 3435 “Jayalita Case”
• Issue- Conviction of a person for an offence- disqualified to be a
member of the state legislature. Can such a person be appointed as
Chief Minister?
• Held- A person who is convicted for a criminal offence and sentenced
to imprisonment for a period of not less than 2 years cannot be
appointed the Chief Minister of the state under Articles 164(1) read
with A.164(4) and cannot continue to function as such.
 Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Re Gujrat
Assembly Election Matter), AIR 2003 SC 87
• A.356 & A.143
• Issue-
• The President has referred the important question regarding interpretation of A.174 and A.324
to the SC for it advisory opinion under A.143 of the Constitution.
• Held
• that A.174 (1) does not apply to a ‘dissolved assembly’ but to a ‘live assembly’. A.174 (1) neither
relates to elections nor does it provide any outer limit for holding elections for constituting the
Assembly. The holding of elections is the exclusive domain of election commission under A.324.
• Merely because the time schedule fixed under A.174 cannot be adhered to that per se cannot be
a ground for bringing into operation A.356. Since A.174(1) does not apply to dissolved legislative
assembly and as such there being no infraction of A.174(1) in preparing schedule for election by
the commission, the question of applicability of A.356 does not arise. The question of
declaration of state emergency under A.356 has no relevance to fixation of election schedule.
 Jaya Bachchan v. UOI, AIR 2006 SC 980 
‘office of profit’
• A.102(1)(a) of the Constitution
• The Court interpreted the expression ‘office of profit’ in the context of
disqualification for the membership of Parliament.
• ‘Office of Profit’ is an office which is capable of yielding a profit of
pecuniary gain.
• The Apex court upheld her disqualification from the membership of
Rajya Sabha.
Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007)
3 SCC 184
• Art.105(3)
• The Constitutional validity of the expulsion of certain MPs by the
Parliament was in issue.
• The court held that there is no power of expulsion in the Parliament,
either inherent or traceable to Art. 105(3)
• Expulsion by the house will be possible only if Art. 102 or Art. 101 are
suitably amended or if a law is made under Art. 102 (1) (e) enabling
the house to expel a member found unworthy or unfit of continuing
as member.
 Rameshwar Prasad v. UOI, AIR 2006 SC 980
“Bihar Assembly Dissolution Case’
• A. 356
• Issue - The Constitutional validity of Notification dated 23 May, 2005
ordering dissolution of Legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar was
in issue.
• Held- The President proclamation dissolving state assembly in Bihar
under A.356 was unconstitutional and based on extraneous and
irrelevant grounds.
• Proclamation under A.356 on “immorality” is not a valid ground