Article 105 of Constitution: The limits to free speech in Parliament, and what Supreme Court has ruled

Source: The post is based on the article “Article 105 of Constitution: The limits to free speech in Parliament, and what Supreme Court has ruled” published in The Indian Express on 11^th February 2023.

Syllabus: GS 2 – Indian Polity

Relevance: Parliamentary Privileges and associated concerns

News: Members of Parliament enjoy certain privileges and powers under Article 105. This article provides insights into those privileges and the limitations.

What is Article 105?

Under Article 105, Members of Parliament are exempted from any legal action for any statement made or act done in the course of their duties. For example, a defamation suit cannot be filed for a statement made in the House.

This immunity extends to certain non-members as well, such as the Attorney General for India or a Minister who may not be a member but speaks in the House.

If an MP exceeds its speech limit, then it is duty of the Speaker or the House to deal with it.

However, the article also has restrictions such as Article 121 prohibits any discussion in Parliament regarding the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties.

How did this idea of privilege originate?

The Government of India Act, 1935 first brought this provision to India with references to the powers and privileges enjoyed by the House of Commons in Britain.

However, unlike India where the Constitution is supreme, Britain follows Parliamentary supremacy.

What are the various judgments of court related to parliamentary privileges?

The SC in ‘Tej Kiran Jain v N Sanjiva Reddy’ (1970), ruled that the word “anything” in Article 105 has wide interpretations.

Further, the SC in the case of ‘P V Narasimha Rao vs. State’ (1998) ruled that the ordinary law would not apply to the acceptance of a bribe by an MP in case of parliamentary proceedings.

The court interpreted Article 105(2) and said that it protects MPs against proceedings in court related to anything said or a vote given in the Parliament.

The court further said that it will allow MPs to participate fearlessly in the Parliamentary debates and they need wider protection of immunity against all civil and criminal proceedings that bear a nexus to their speech or vote.