Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Parliamentary privileges, rooted in historical practices and enshrined in Article 105 of the Indian Constitution, are rights and immunities afforded to Members of Parliament (MPs) to enable them to discharge their duties effectively without fear of undue interference. These privileges, however, have frequently clashed with the judiciary's power of judicial review, leading to a persistent tension. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) marked a pivotal moment, initiating a debate on the limits of parliamentary power and judicial scrutiny. This statement's validity lies in the recurrent conflicts, exemplified by subsequent cases, showcasing the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of these crucial constitutional principles.
Understanding Parliamentary Privileges and Judicial Review
Parliamentary privileges are not explicitly defined in the Constitution but are derived from constitutional provisions, conventions, and historical practices. They include freedom of speech in Parliament, protection from arrest during sessions, and the right to publish parliamentary proceedings. Judicial review, on the other hand, is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.
Historical Context: The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati case, while primarily concerned with the basic structure doctrine, indirectly touched upon parliamentary privileges. The Allahabad High Court’s decision restricting the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution led to the 24th Amendment Act, which attempted to curtail judicial review. This demonstrated the initial reluctance of the judiciary to interfere with parliamentary power.
The Kihoto Hollohan Case (1992): A Defining Moment
The Kihoto Hollohan case proved to be a watershed moment. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the importance of parliamentary privilege, held that it is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The court struck down Section 53 of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly Act, 1982, which conferred immunity from judicial scrutiny on decisions of the Speaker regarding disqualification of MLAs. This affirmed the judiciary's power to review actions taken under the guise of parliamentary privilege if they violate fundamental rights or constitutional principles.
In Re Special Reference (2014) and Subsequent Developments
In 2014, the Supreme Court, in a special reference, reiterated the principle that parliamentary privileges are not immune from judicial scrutiny, although the courts should be reluctant to interfere. The court emphasized the need for a delicate balance between the two branches of government. Recent instances, such as debates surrounding the privileges extended to parliamentary committees and their interactions with executive bodies, continue to highlight the ongoing tension.
Reasons for the Conflict
- Differing Interpretations of Constitutional Provisions: Disagreement over the scope of Article 105 and the extent to which it protects parliamentary actions.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: Concerns that parliamentary privilege could be used to shield actions that violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
- Separation of Powers: The inherent tension between the legislative and judicial branches, each safeguarding its domain.
Table: A Comparison of Perspectives
| Perspective | Argument |
|---|---|
| Parliament | Privileges are essential for effective legislative functioning and should be broadly protected. Judicial intervention undermines parliamentary autonomy. |
| Judiciary | While respecting parliamentary privilege, judicial review is necessary to uphold the Constitution and protect fundamental rights. Parliamentary actions are not beyond the reach of the law. |
The Way Forward
Reconciling these conflicting interests requires a nuanced approach. Strengthening constitutional literacy among lawmakers and promoting greater dialogue between the branches are crucial. The judiciary should exercise restraint while safeguarding fundamental rights, and Parliament should respect the judiciary's role in upholding the Constitution.
Conclusion
The contention between parliamentary privilege and judicial review reflects the inherent tension within a democratic system governed by the principle of separation of powers. While the Kihoto Hollohan case solidified the judiciary’s power to review parliamentary actions, a delicate balance remains essential. Moving forward, fostering mutual respect, constitutional literacy, and open dialogue between Parliament and the judiciary will be vital to ensure the health and vitality of India’s democratic institutions.
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.