“विधायिका द्वारा किए जाने वाले उच्च एवं बहुआयामी कार्यों के संपादन हेतु संसदीय विशेषाधिकार अत्यंत आवश्यक है ।” विवेचना कीजिए । वर्तमान प्रस्थिति में आप क्या सुधार सुझाना चाहेंगे ? "Parliamentary privilege is an essential incident to the high and multifarious functions which the legislature performs." Discuss. What reforms will you suggest, if any, in the existing position?
-
Core Legal Answer & Context: Parliamentary privileges are special rights, immunities, and exemptions enjoyed by members of Parliament (and state legislatures) collectively and individually, without which they cannot discharge their functions effectively. The statement correctly asserts their essential nature, as legislatures perform high and multifarious functions, including law-making, oversight of the executive, representation of constituents, and deliberation on national issues. These privileges are designed to protect the freedom of speech and action of legislators, ensure the dignity and authority of the legislative body, and enable them to function without fear or favor. Key privileges include freedom of speech in Parliament, immunity from arrest in civil cases during sessions, and the right to regulate their internal proceedings. Without these, legislators could be intimidated, obstructed, or unduly influenced, thereby undermining the democratic process. However, the exercise of these privileges has often led to controversies, particularly when they clash with fundamental rights of citizens, such as freedom of speech and expression or the right to due process.
-
Relevant Statutes and Sections:
- Article 105 (for Parliament) and Article 194 (for State Legislatures) of the Indian Constitution: These articles define parliamentary privileges. They state that members shall have freedom of speech in Parliament and shall not be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament. They also provide for immunity from arrest in civil cases during the session and 40 days before and after. Furthermore, they state that the powers, privileges, and immunities of each House, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of Section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. This effectively refers to the privileges of the House of Commons of the UK Parliament as they existed on January 26, 1950.
- Important Landmark Cases:
- In Re: Keshav Singh's Case (1965): This advisory opinion by the Supreme Court addressed the conflict between parliamentary privilege and fundamental rights (specifically, Article 21 - right to life and personal liberty, and Article 226 - power of High Courts to issue writs). The Court held that while privileges are important, they are not absolute and must be harmonized with fundamental rights. It established that the judiciary has the power to review the exercise of parliamentary privilege if it infringes upon fundamental rights.
- P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998): This case dealt with the immunity of MPs from prosecution for bribery in connection with votes cast in Parliament. The Supreme Court held that Article 105(2) grants immunity to MPs for anything said or any vote given in Parliament, but this immunity does not extend to acts of bribery committed outside the House to secure a vote.
- Clear Conclusion & Reforms:
Parliamentary privileges are indeed essential for the effective functioning of a democratic legislature. However, their undefined nature and potential for misuse necessitate reforms. I would suggest the following:
- Codification: Parliament should codify its privileges, as envisaged by the Constitution, to bring clarity and certainty. This would reduce ambiguity and prevent arbitrary exercise of power.
- Harmonization with Fundamental Rights: Any codified law must explicitly state that privileges are subject to fundamental rights, ensuring that the legislature's powers do not override individual liberties. The 'Keshav Singh' principle should be enshrined in law.
- Judicial Review: While respecting the separation of powers, the exercise of privilege should not be entirely immune from judicial review, especially when it involves punitive action against citizens or members that may violate due process.
- Transparency and Due Process: Procedures for investigating breaches of privilege should be transparent, fair, and adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and legal representation.
- Self-Regulation and Restraint: Legislatures should exercise greater self-restraint and use punitive privileges sparingly, only in cases of grave contempt, and with a focus on upholding the dignity of the House rather than stifling dissent or criticism. These reforms would help strike a balance between protecting the legislature's ability to function and safeguarding the rights of citizens, thereby strengthening democratic governance.