How can freedom of speech and parliamentary privileges be balanced to uphold rights, responsibilities, and democratic integrity?

Introduction

Parliamentary privileges and the freedom of speech of Members of Parliament (MPs) are cornerstone principles in democratic governance. They ensure that lawmakers can perform their legislative functions effectively and independently without undue interference. These privileges, rooted in historical traditions and constitutional frameworks, provide certain rights and immunities to parliamentary institutions and their members. The interplay between freedom of speech and parliamentary privileges is crucial in safeguarding the sanctity and efficacy of parliamentary proceedings.

The Nature of Parliamentary Privilege

• Parliamentary privilege encompasses a collection of rights enjoyed by each House of Parliament collectively and by its members individually. These rights enable the Parliament to discharge its functions effectively, transcending the ordinary rights available to individuals or other bodies.
• Erskine defines these privileges as fundamental rights necessary for the Parliament to perform its duties without obstruction.[1]
• Privileges can be categorized broadly into individual and collective rights. Individual rights, such as freedom from arrest and freedom of speech, empower members to execute their roles unimpeded.
• For instance, MPs enjoy immunity from legal proceedings for statements made or votes cast within parliamentary sessions.
• Collective rights, on the other hand, include the powers of each House to regulate its internal affairs, punish for contempt, and uphold its dignity and authority. These rights ensure that Parliament operates as an autonomous institution.

Contempt of Parliament

• A breach of privilege occurs when these rights are disregarded or attacked.
• Contempt of Parliament, a broader concept, includes actions that obstruct or impede the Parliament or its members in performing their duties.
• It may involve disobedience to parliamentary commands, disrespect towards its dignity, or interference with its proceedings. Acts of contempt are punishable under parliamentary law, underscoring the critical importance of protecting the institution's authority.
• Contempt includes actions like refusing to testify when summoned, publishing libelous material about Parliament, or disrupting its proceedings.
• The objective of punishing contempt is not punitive but protective, ensuring that parliamentary functions are carried out without hindrance. 

Freedom of Speech in Parliament

• Freedom of speech is a pivotal privilege granted to members of Parliament. It allows MPs to express their views, debate policies, and raise issues without fear of legal repercussions.
• This privilege, codified in Article 105 of the Indian Constitution[2], guarantees immunity from court proceedings for anything said or votes cast during parliamentary sessions. Such freedom is indispensable for robust parliamentary debate and decision-making.
• The immunity extends to speeches and disclosures made within the House or its committees.
• This provision ensures that MPs can speak their minds freely, addressing sensitive or controversial matters without fear of defamation lawsuits or criminal prosecution.
• However, this right is not absolute; it is subject to the rules and discipline of the House. Members are expected to exercise their freedom responsibly, refraining from making baseless allegations or defamatory remarks. 

Constitutional Provisions and Statutory Backing

• The Constitution of India provides a comprehensive framework for the privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament (MPs) and parliamentary bodies, ensuring their independence and effective functioning.
• Key provisions include immunity from court proceedings for statements made during parliamentary debates, protection of parliamentary publications, and a prohibition on judicial inquiries into the validity of parliamentary procedures. These measures uphold the autonomy of the legislature and safeguard its processes from external interference.
• Under Article 105[3] of the Constitution, these privileges extend to both Houses of Parliament, their members, and committees. Unless explicitly defined by law, these privileges are deemed equivalent to those enjoyed by the British House of Commons at the time the Indian Constitution came into effect.
• While comprehensive legislation detailing these privileges is absent, the combination of constitutional provisions and established parliamentary conventions provides a robust and functional framework.
• Statutory provisions further reinforce these privileges. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, offers additional safeguards, such as protection from arrest and detention under civil process during parliamentary sessions, as well as for forty days before and after the session. This ensures MPs can participate in legislative activities without disruption.

Key constitutional and statutory provisions include:

• Freedom of speech in Parliament: MPs have the right to express their views freely during parliamentary proceedings, as outlined in Article 105(1)[4].
• Immunity from court proceedings: MPs are protected from any legal action in respect of anything said or any vote cast in Parliament or its committees, as specified in Article 105(2)[5].
• Protection of parliamentary publications: Individuals are immune from legal proceedings for publishing reports, papers, or proceedings under the authority of either House, as per Article 105(2)[6].
• Prohibition on judicial inquiry into parliamentary procedures: Courts cannot question the validity of parliamentary proceedings on grounds of procedural irregularities, as mandated by Article 122(1)[7].
• Freedom from arrest in civil cases: Section 135A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[8], exempts MPs from arrest and detention in civil cases during parliamentary sessions and for the stipulated periods before and after.

These privileges and protections not only empower MPs to perform their duties effectively but also uphold the sanctity and independence of parliamentary institutions in India. 

Powers and Responsibilities of Parliament

Parliamentary privileges are accompanied by consequential powers essential for their enforcement. These include the authority to:

1. Commit individuals for breach of privilege or contempt.
2. Summon witnesses and demand the production of documents.
3. Regulate its procedure and business conduct.
4. Prohibit publication of debates and proceedings.
5. Exclude strangers from its sessions.

These powers underscore Parliament's ability to safeguard its functioning and uphold its dignity. The penal jurisdiction of Parliament extends to punishing breaches of privilege or acts of contempt through imprisonment, admonition, reprimand, suspension, or expulsion. 

Judicial Interpretations of Parliamentary Privileges

• In the case of Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh v. Hari Sadhan Mukherjee & Others[9], the appellant, an elected member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, intended to ask certain questions in the Assembly. However, these questions were disallowed under the rules of procedure. Despite this, the appellant published the disallowed questions in a local newspaper, leading to a complaint by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who alleged that the publication contained slanderous accusations intended to harm his reputation.
• The Court held that the appellant’s actions were protected under Article 194(1)[10] of the Constitution, which ensures freedom of speech in the legislature. It was observed that even though the questions were disallowed, their publication was intrinsically linked to the legislative process and thus formed part of the proceedings of the House. Consequently, the appellant was granted immunity, and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code were deemed inapplicable. This judgment affirmed the broad interpretation of legislative privileges, ensuring that members can exercise their duties without fear of legal consequences.
• In the case of P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State[11], the question of immunity under Article 105(2)[12] arose when allegations were made that certain Members of Parliament had accepted bribes to vote against a motion of no confidence. Charges were brought against the then-Prime Minister, P.V. Narsimha Rao, under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that he had bribed MPs to influence their votes.
• The Court ruled that the immunity under Article 105(2)[13] extended to all acts directly related to parliamentary proceedings, including speech and votes. It was emphasized that the term "anything" in the Article must be interpreted broadly to cover all parliamentary activities, even if influenced by improper motives such as bribery. As a result, the MPs were granted immunity from prosecution for these acts, and P.V. Narsimha Rao was not held criminally liable. 

Balancing Privileges and Accountability

While parliamentary privileges are vital, they must be balanced with accountability. MPs are not exempt from societal obligations or the application of laws unless explicitly provided for the protection of parliamentary functions. Privileges are granted solely to enable Parliament to perform its duties effectively, not to place its members above the law.

The framers of the Indian Constitution emphasized this balance by ensuring that privileges do not discharge members from their responsibilities as citizens. MPs are expected to uphold ethical standards and adhere to the principles of democracy and transparency. 

Controversies and Challenges

The exercise of parliamentary privileges occasionally raises controversies. Instances of misuse, such as making defamatory statements under the guise of immunity, undermine public trust in democratic institutions. Similarly, excessive use of penal powers, such as expulsion or imprisonment, may be perceived as authoritarian.

The lack of codification of privileges in India adds to the challenges. While the Constitution provides a broad framework, the absence of detailed legislation leads to ambiguities and disputes. Defining privileges through statutory law can enhance clarity, accountability, and consistency in their application.

Freedom of Speech and Democratic Governance

Freedom of speech in Parliament is integral to democratic governance. It fosters open debate, transparency, and accountability in decision-making. By protecting MPs from external interference, it ensures that they can represent their constituents' interests without fear or favour.

At the same time, this privilege requires responsible exercise. MPs must use their freedom to contribute constructively to parliamentary discussions, avoiding personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations. The credibility of parliamentary institutions depends on the integrity and decorum of their members. 

Conclusion

The interplay between freedom of speech and parliamentary privileges is a cornerstone of democratic governance. These privileges empower Parliament to function independently, debate policies openly, and safeguard its authority and dignity. At the same time, they impose responsibilities on MPs to uphold ethical standards and use their rights judiciously.

Codifying parliamentary privileges can address ambiguities and enhance accountability. Striking a balance between privileges and responsibilities ensures that parliamentary institutions remain credible, effective, and aligned with democratic principles. As custodians of democracy, MPs must exercise their rights with integrity, contributing to the nation's governance and upholding the public's trust.

[1] Erskine, May, Parliamentary Practice, Butterworths, London, 24th Edn., 2011.

[2] The Indian Constitution, art. 105.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Id. at art. 105(1).

[5] Id. at art. 105(2).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Id. at art. 122(1).

[8] The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 135A.

[9] AIR 1961 SC 613.

[10] The Indian Constitution, s. art. 194(1).

[11]  1988 Cri LJ 2930.

[12] Supra at 5.

[13] Ibid.

Download