“The issue of Parliamentary-privileges has been a bone of contention and conflict between the Parliament and the Judiciary." Analyse this statement in the backdrop of decided cases.
-
Core Legal Answer & Context: The statement accurately reflects the historical and ongoing tension between Parliament and the Judiciary in India concerning parliamentary privileges. Parliamentary privileges are special rights, immunities, and exemptions enjoyed by Parliament as an institution, its members, and committees, essential for their effective functioning without external interference. These include freedom of speech in Parliament, freedom from arrest in civil cases during sessions, and the right to regulate internal proceedings. The conflict arises when Parliament asserts its exclusive right to determine the scope and exercise of these privileges, often leading to actions (like summoning individuals for breach of privilege) that are perceived by the judiciary as infringing upon fundamental rights or exceeding legislative authority. The judiciary, on the other hand, views itself as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, including the provisions relating to parliamentary privileges, and asserts its power of judicial review over parliamentary actions, especially when they impact fundamental rights.
-
Relevant Statutes and Sections:
- Article 105 of the Indian Constitution: Deals with the powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof. Clause (3) states that until defined by law, privileges shall be those of the House of Commons of the UK as of 26th January 1950.
- Article 194 of the Indian Constitution: Analogous provision for State Legislatures.
- Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution: Grant the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, the power of judicial review, including the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Important Landmark Cases:
- In Re: Article 143, Constitution of India (Keshav Singh's Case, 1965): This is the most significant case illustrating the conflict. The Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly committed a person (Keshav Singh) for contempt and breach of privilege. When he sought habeas corpus from the High Court, the Assembly initiated contempt proceedings against the High Court judges and lawyers. The Supreme Court, in an advisory opinion, held that while the legislature has the power to punish for contempt, its actions are subject to judicial review if they infringe upon fundamental rights. It affirmed the judiciary's role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional provisions, including those relating to privileges.
- Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007): This case involved the expulsion of 11 MPs for taking money for asking questions in Parliament (cash-for-query scam). The Supreme Court held that while Parliament has the power to expel members, the exercise of this power is subject to judicial review on grounds of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or unconstitutionality. This judgment reaffirmed the principle that parliamentary privileges are not absolute and cannot be used to violate fundamental rights or to act arbitrarily.
- Clear Conclusion: The conflict between Parliament and the Judiciary over privileges stems from their respective roles as guardians of the Constitution and democratic institutions. While Parliament needs privileges for its effective functioning, the judiciary's role in upholding fundamental rights and ensuring constitutionalism cannot be undermined. Decided cases have largely established that parliamentary privileges, though essential, are not beyond the pale of judicial review, especially when they impinge on fundamental rights or involve arbitrary exercise of power. This ongoing dialogue ensures a delicate balance between legislative autonomy and constitutional supremacy.