Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Parliamentary privileges are certain rights and immunities enjoyed by Members of Parliament (MPs) and the Parliament itself, intended to safeguard the independence and effectiveness of the legislature. Rooted in the British parliamentary tradition, these privileges, as enshrined in Article 105 of the Indian Constitution, aim to ensure that MPs can perform their duties without fear or favour. However, Article 105 only explicitly mentions freedom of speech and immunity from proceedings in any court for what is said or any vote given in Parliament. This leaves a significant scope for un-codified, common law-based privileges to continue, leading to frequent debates and legal challenges regarding their scope and legitimacy. The absence of a comprehensive legal framework raises concerns about transparency and potential for abuse.
Reasons for Absence of Legal Codification
Several factors contribute to the lack of complete legal codification of parliamentary privileges:
- Historical Legacy & Evolving Nature: Indian parliamentary privileges are largely derived from the British system, which itself wasn’t fully codified. Moreover, privileges have evolved over time through precedents and judicial interpretations, making a static codification difficult.
- Judicial Reluctance: The judiciary has generally adopted a hands-off approach, recognizing the principle of parliamentary autonomy and avoiding direct interference in the internal affairs of Parliament. Landmark cases like Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) demonstrate this reluctance, though the Supreme Court has asserted its power to review the reasonableness of privileges.
- Political Considerations: Codification could potentially limit the scope of privileges, which MPs may be hesitant to accept. There's a fear that a rigid legal framework might hinder their ability to effectively scrutinize the executive and perform their legislative functions.
- Difficulty in Defining Scope: Defining the precise scope of privileges is challenging. What constitutes ‘necessary’ for the functioning of Parliament is subjective and open to interpretation.
- Lack of Consensus: There has been a lack of political consensus on the need for and the content of a comprehensive codification. Various committees have addressed the issue, but their recommendations haven’t been fully implemented.
Committees and Recommendations
Several committees have examined the issue of codifying parliamentary privileges:
| Committee | Year | Key Recommendations |
|---|---|---|
| Committee on Privileges (Lok Sabha) | 1998 | Recommended codification of privileges, but emphasized the need to preserve parliamentary autonomy. |
| National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) | 2002 | Suggested a comprehensive review and codification of privileges, with a clear definition of their scope. |
| Speaker’s Committee on Lok Sabha Privileges | 2014 | Advocated for a balanced approach, suggesting codification of essential privileges while retaining flexibility for evolving needs. |
Addressing the Problem
Addressing the issue requires a multi-pronged approach:
- Comprehensive Codification: A well-defined legal framework outlining the scope and limits of parliamentary privileges is crucial. This should be based on constitutional principles and judicial precedents.
- Judicial Review Mechanism: While respecting parliamentary autonomy, a clear mechanism for judicial review of privilege claims should be established to ensure reasonableness and prevent abuse.
- Parliamentary Committee for Privilege Disputes: Strengthening the role of the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently.
- Public Awareness: Increasing public awareness about parliamentary privileges and their importance in a democratic system.
- Regular Review: The codified privileges should be subject to periodic review and amendment to adapt to changing circumstances.
A balance must be struck between codifying essential privileges to ensure transparency and accountability, and preserving the necessary flexibility for Parliament to function effectively.
Conclusion
The absence of a comprehensive legal codification of parliamentary privileges in India creates ambiguity and potential for conflict. While respecting the principle of parliamentary autonomy is vital, a clear and well-defined legal framework is necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and prevent abuse. Implementing the recommendations of various committees, coupled with a robust judicial review mechanism, can help strike a balance between preserving parliamentary independence and upholding the rule of law. A proactive approach to codification will strengthen the foundations of Indian democracy.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.