Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Parliamentary privilege is a unique and essential aspect of the Indian democratic framework, rooted in the principle of free and unfettered debate within legislative bodies. It is not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution but is inferred from Articles 105 and 194 of Part V. The rationale behind this privilege is to ensure that legislators can perform their duties without fear of undue influence or reprisal. Recent debates surrounding the privilege of the Rajya Sabha Ethics Committee in the context of the Derek O’Brien case highlight the ongoing relevance and potential controversies surrounding this power. This answer will delve into the law relating to the powers of Parliament and State Legislatures to punish breaches of privilege, examining the scope, limitations, and judicial oversight.
Understanding Parliamentary Privilege
Parliamentary privilege is a set of immunities and rights granted to members of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) and State Legislatures, essential for the effective functioning of the legislature. It is inherent in the legislative process, not a statutory grant. It is analogous to the privileges historically enjoyed by the British Parliament.
Powers of Parliament to Punish Breach of Privilege
Article 105 of the Constitution provides the basis for Parliament’s power to punish breaches of privilege. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha are the final authorities on questions of privilege.
- Investigation and Inquiry: Parliament can investigate and inquire into matters of privilege through a Privileges Committee.
- Punishment: Punishments for breach of privilege can include:
- Imprisonment: Members can be imprisoned for contempt of the House, though this is rare.
- Suspension: Suspension from the service of the House.
- Censure: Formal reprimand by the House.
- Disqualification: Although not directly a punishment for breach of privilege, actions leading to a breach could potentially trigger disqualification under Article 104.
- Example: The 2023 case involving Derek O'Brien of the TMC in the Rajya Sabha, where he was accused of tearing rule books during a debate, exemplifies the exercise of parliamentary privilege. While a committee was formed, the issue remains contentious, demonstrating the complexities of applying privilege.
Powers of State Legislatures
Article 194 grants similar powers to State Legislatures, mirroring the provisions for Parliament. The Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly and the Chairman of the State Legislative Council are the final authorities.
- Investigation and Inquiry: Similar to Parliament, State Legislatures can investigate breaches of privilege.
- Punishment: The range of punishments is similar to that available to Parliament - imprisonment, suspension, censure.
- Differences from Parliament: State legislatures have less scope to punish offences. They are subject to greater judicial scrutiny.
Limitations on Powers
While significant, the power to punish for breach of privilege is not absolute and faces limitations:
- Constitutional Rights: Any punishment must respect fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly freedom of speech and expression (Article 19).
- Judicial Review: The power to punish for breach of privilege is subject to judicial review. Courts can intervene if the proceedings are found to be arbitrary, unfair, or violate constitutional principles.
- Rule of Law: The principle of natural justice must be followed during proceedings.
- Article 212: This article bars judicial review of proceedings in the Legislature, but this has been diluted by Supreme Court interpretations.
Judicial Perspective
The Supreme Court has taken a cautious view of the power to punish for breach of privilege, emphasizing the need for restraint and adherence to constitutional principles.
- Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): While upholding the power, the court stressed that it must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily.
- Maneka Gandhi Case (1978): Expanded the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) which has implications for procedural fairness in privilege proceedings.
- Rajesh Rastogi vs. State of UP (2006): The Supreme Court held that the power to punish for breach of privilege cannot be used to stifle legitimate criticism.
| Feature | Parliament (Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha) | State Legislature (Assembly/Council) |
|---|---|---|
| Basis of Power | Article 105 of the Constitution | Article 194 of the Constitution |
| Final Authority | Speaker (Lok Sabha), Chairman (Rajya Sabha) | Speaker (Assembly), Chairman (Council) |
| Judicial Review | Subject to judicial review, but with greater deference | Subject to greater judicial scrutiny |
| Scope of Punishment | Potentially wider range of punishments | More restricted range of punishments |
Recent Developments and Concerns
The increasing use of privilege proceedings, sometimes perceived as tools to stifle dissent or target political opponents, has raised concerns about the potential for abuse. The Derek O'Brien case serves as a stark reminder of these tensions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the power of Parliament and State Legislatures to punish breaches of privilege is a vital mechanism for maintaining the dignity and effectiveness of legislative bodies. However, this power is not unfettered and is subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review. Balancing the need to protect legislative processes with the fundamental rights of individuals remains a crucial challenge, requiring careful consideration and restraint in the exercise of this privilege. Future legislative reforms and judicial interpretations will likely shape the contours of parliamentary privilege in the years to come.
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.