Author: Rani Prajapat, Ideal Institute of Management and Technology, School of Law
Abstract
Indian Constitution cautiously harmonises the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy with the amendability of fundamental rights. On the one hand are the parliamentary immunities conferred by Articles 105 and 194, allowing the legislatures to act without fear or favour. On the other hand are the Fundamental Rights under Part III, ensuring individual freedom and liberty. When these two constitutional silos conflict—e.g., when legislative privilege overrides a citizen’s speech or liberty—a legal tug-of-war between them takes place. The article analyzes the tension between parliamentary privileges and human rights through the prisms of judicial interpretation, constitutional theory, and leading precedents. It presents an argument in favor of codification, judicial restraint, and harmonious construction in seeking to balance legislative immunity and constitutional supremacy.
To the Point
Parliamentary immunities are inevitable to safeguard the honesty of parliamentary proceedings. Yet, when exercised unconditionally, they might be in direct clash with the basic rights of citizens, e.g., the right to freedom of speech, equality before the law, or security of life and personal freedom.
Neither parliamentary privilege nor fundamental rights are professed to be absolute in the Indian constitutional system. The real question is to establish to what degree privileges may be asserted without infringing constitutional rights. The judiciary has found it difficult to balance this, particularly on account of the uncodified nature of privileges and the broad contours of fundamental rights in contemporary jurisprudence.
This article seeks to investigate if legislative immunity can pre-eminent individual liberties, and if so, under what conditions and extent.
Use of Legal Jargon
Parliamentary Privileges: Legal immunities and rights which are being enjoyed by Members of Parliament (Art. 105) and State Legislatures (Art. 194) in India.
Breach of Privilege: Any act that obstructs or impedes the functioning of the House or its members.
Fundamental Rights: rights which are Constitutionally guaranteed and are available to individuals. These are enforceable against the State under Part III of the constitution of india.
Judicial Review: The power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
Supremacy of Constitution: The doctrine that the Constitution is the highest legal authority, and all actions must conform to its provisions.
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction: A rule of interpretation used to resolve conflicts between different constitutional provisions by giving effect to all of them without rendering any nugatory.
The Proof
Constitutional Structure
Article 105(1) and (2) gives every Member of Parliament immunity of speech in the House and exemption from proceedings before any court for words spoken or votes given in the House.
Article 105(3) declares that these privileges shall be those of the House of Commons of the UK until such privileges are defined by law.
Likewise, Article 194 extends the same privileges to State Legislatures.
But Part III (Articles 12 to 35) enunciates justiciable constitutional rights, enforceable under Article 32(Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts).
The conflict arises when uncodified privileges—e.g., the contempt jurisdiction—are invoked to restrict personal freedoms, sometimes in the absence of due process or judicial
Case Laws
1. Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha (1959)
Facts: A journalist printed an Assembly speech prior to its expunction and was held in contempt of privilege. He alleged a breach of Article 19(1)(a).
Held: The Supreme Court held that Article 194(3) (privileges) trumps Article 19.
Significance: Upheld privilege of legislature over fundamental rights, arousing concern for press freedom.
2. Keshav Singh’s Case (Special Reference No. 1 of 1964)
Facts: A common man was imprisoned by the UP Assembly for contempt. The High Court released him on bail, and the Assembly turned the judges into an instrument of contempt.
Held: The Supreme Court made it clear that parliamentary privileges are bound by constitutional standards.
Significance: Expressed that nobody, including legislatures, is above constitutional oversight.
3. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299)
Facts: Challenge to a constitutional amendment which sought to immunize election disputes relating to the Prime Minister.
Held: Court applied the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that rule of law and equality cannot be transgressed even by Parliament.
Significance: Solidified that fundamental rights constitute part of the basic structure.
4. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State AIR 1998 SC 2120
Facts: MPs took bribes for Parliamentary voting and invoked immunity under Article 105(2).
Held: Majority held MPs to be immune from prosecution in case the bribe was for a vote or speech in the House.
Significance: Strongly controversial—immunity extended even to corrupt offenses, reflecting the hazard of unbridled privileges.
5. Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha (2007 3 SCC 184)
Facts: MPs were expelled from Parliament for accepting bribes in a sting operation.
Held: The Supreme Court reaffirmed judicial review of privilege proceedings where there was illegality or violation of the Constitution.
Significance: Held that privileges are not absolute and can be challenged on constitutional grounds.
Conclusion
The constant struggle between parliamentary privileges and basic rights is at the core of constitutional government. The Indian courts have evolved from a strict perception of legislative dominance to one more centered on the supremacy of the Constitution.
Legislatures have to operate independently, but their independence cannot transform into impunity. The judiciary’s interference in Raja Ram Pal and Keshav Singh cases highlights judicial checks where privileges are utilized arbitrarily or oppressively.
The uncodification of privileges under Articles 105 and 194 has produced interpretational uncertainty. Codification would bring in transparency and accountability while maintaining legislative autonomy. Simultaneously, the basic rights, especially Articles 14, 19, and 21, have to serve as the outer limit beyond which legislative privilege cannot function.
As India grows into a more participatory and rights-aware democracy, this equilibrium between institutional privilege and individual freedom must be maintained through constitutional loyalty, legal lucidity, and judicial restraint.
FAQS
1. What are Parliamentary Privileges?
Parliamentary privileges are extraordinary juridical entitlements and immunities enjoyed by Members of Parliament and State Legislatures such as freedom of speech in the House, exemption from legal proceedings, and power to punish for contempt.
2. Are Fundamental Rights more superior than Parliamentary Privileges?
Although earlier judgments inclined in favour of the privileges, the contemporary view of the judiciary upholds the primacy of the Constitution. The fundamental rights take precedence unless the privilege is necessary for legislative functioning and does not infringe the Constitution’s basic structure.
3. Can courts review decisions made under legislative privilege?
Yes. While previous judgments restricted judicial review, courts have held through cases such as Raja Ram Pal that they could step in whenever there is a misuse of privilege which is malicious, unconstitutional, or arbitrary.
4. Why are Parliamentary Privileges not codified?
The framers of the Constitution did not codify them and took over the privileges of the British House of Commons. But this looseness has been misused, and most legal scholars recommend codification to avoid ambiguity.
5. What if there’s conflict between privilege and individual rights?
Courts try a harmonious construction, giving effect to both. But if the exercise of privilege is in conflict with fundamental rights like liberty or equality, the Constitution has to override.
