Protecting the Freedom of Speech of MPs

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2- Parliament and State legislatures—structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges and issues arising out of these.

Introduction

Recent developments in Parliament have brought renewed attention to the need for protecting the freedom of speech of Members of Parliament, a constitutional privilege guaranteed under Article 105. While procedural rules regulate debate and maintain order, concerns have arisen that their application may be restricting rather than safeguarding this freedom. The central issue is whether institutional practices are preserving or weakening the constitutional protection that enables Parliament to function through open and fearless discussion.

Constitutional and Institutional Framework Governing Parliamentary Speech

1. Dual structure of free speech: Article 19 guarantees freedom of speech to all citizens, while Articles 105 and 194 provide special legislative privilege to MPs and MLAs.
2. Enhanced constitutional protection: Legislators cannot be punished for any speech or vote inside the House, giving their expression stronger protection than that available to ordinary citizens.
3. Immunity from judicial scrutiny: Courts are barred from inquiring into parliamentary proceedings, ensuring that legislative deliberation remains institutionally autonomous and legally protected.
4. Internal regulation by legislatures: Speech is subject only to constitutional provisions and standing orders of the House, which organise debate without overriding constitutional guarantees.
5. Limits cannot destroy rights: Restrictions are valid only when they regulate conduct without eclipsing the substance of freedom of speech protected under the Constitution.
6. Purpose of parliamentary privilege: Special protection exists to ensure free, frank, and fearless debate, allowing legislatures to function effectively without external pressure or suppression.
7. Regulation as facilitation, not control: Procedural rules maintain order, dignity, and discipline, but they exist to support constitutional speech rights, not to replace them.
8. Specific constitutional restriction: Article 121 bars discussion on conduct of judges except during removal motions.
9. Examples of procedural limits: Rules restrict sub judice matters, personal allegations, and defamatory charges without prior notice.

The Expunction Controversy and Its Implications

1. Right to recorded speech: MPs are entitled to speak freely and have their full remarks entered in official records, because incomplete recording weakens representation and public accountability processes.
2. Scope of Rule 380: Presiding officers may remove unparliamentary, defamatory, indecent, or undignified words, but the rule allows deletion only of specific offending expressions, not entire sentences or paragraphs.
3. Effects of excessive expunction: Removing large portions of speeches can distort meaning, make arguments incoherent, and effectively undermine the constitutional protection given to parliamentary expression and representation itself.
4. Duty while exercising authority: Presiding officers must protect dignity of debate while ensuring that disciplinary powers do not diminish or narrow the essential freedom of speech of members.
5. Mindless application and historical record: Speeches preserved for posterity lose coherence when rules are applied mechanically, weakening institutional memory and reducing the value of parliamentary deliberation over time.

Importance of Free Speech in Parliamentary Democracy

1. Protection from executive dominance: Free speech allows legislators to debate without fear, preventing the executive from controlling or suppressing parliamentary discussion.
2. Foundation of democratic governance: Open expression in legislatures sustains liberal democracy by ensuring that diverse views are debated before decisions are made.
3. Essential for legislative oversight: Parliament can effectively check and scrutinise the executive only when members freely question policies, actions, and decisions.
4. Integrity of legislative functioning: Fearless discussion preserves credibility of parliamentary processes and ensures that public concerns are properly represented.
5. Strengthening deliberative capacity: Meaningful lawmaking depends on open, uninterrupted debate, and restricting speech weakens Parliament’s ability to examine issues fully.
6. Transparency and public confidence: Open debate makes proceedings visible and understandable to citizens, building trust in fairness and accountability of institutions.
7. Prevention of misuse of procedural powers: When speech is protected, procedural rules cannot easily be used as tools to silence dissent or control debate.
8. Maintenance of parliamentary equilibrium: Democratic stability depends on the majority governing and the minority criticising, and free speech keeps this balance functional.

Functional Role of Opposition in Parliamentary Democracy

1. Essential place of Opposition: Democratic legislatures require active criticism of government actions, because questioning authority and challenging ministers are central responsibilities of opposition members in parliamentary governance systems.
2. Informational value of dissenting voices: Listening to opposition speeches helps reveal realities beyond official narratives, ensuring Parliament receives complete and accurate information necessary for responsible decision making processes.
3. Mutual forbearance as democratic principle: Parliamentary government functions when the majority governs and the minority critiques, with both sides respecting each other’s constitutional roles and institutional legitimacy continuously.
4. Erosion of working relationship: Preventing opposition leaders from speaking and attempts at extreme punitive measures reflect breakdown of trust, cooperation, and balanced functioning within parliamentary political processes today.

Normative Foundations of Parliamentary Conduct and Practice

1. Established democratic conventions: Parliamentary conduct rests on shared norms of respect, accountability, and open debate, which guide behaviour beyond formal written rules and legal provisions governing legislative functioning.
2. Accountability through presence and engagement: Active participation during proceedings ensures correct and complete information reaches Parliament, strengthening transparency, responsibility, and informed decision making within institutional processes of governance.
3. Respect for critical voices: Hearing opposition arguments is necessary to understand realities that may not emerge from supportive party statements, thereby deepening deliberation and strengthening representative functioning overall.
4. Norms protect democratic balance: These practices sustain cooperation between government and Opposition, ensuring legislative work proceeds with restraint, responsibility, and recognition of institutional interdependence within parliamentary democracy itself.

Conclusion

Protecting freedom of speech in Parliament is essential for democratic balance and effective governance. Procedural rules must regulate debate without eroding constitutional guarantees or silencing dissenting voices. Restoring mutual respect between government and Opposition is necessary to preserve institutional integrity, meaningful deliberation, and the long term stability of parliamentary democracy for present and future generations across India.

Question for practice:

Evaluate whether the application of procedural rules in Parliament, particularly expunction of speeches, is undermining the constitutional freedom of speech of legislators and affecting democratic functioning.

Source: The Hindu