Parliamentary Privileges in the Indian Constitution

Parliamentary Privileges in the Indian Constitution The Parliamentary Privileges: (In Reference of Indian Constitution) *Dr S. R. Shukla Introduction: Although any kind of privileges is considered always against the right of equality, yet need of our parliament is a basic one to which a special kind of power is delivered named Parliamentary Privileges. The law making bodies is always being supreme in Society. In ancient time there were religious institutions which made laws for the society and there by religious institution acquired special position in the society and their voices could not be ignored by the4 common flock. They were also adorned with special status, which are called privileges of the institution. But in me dual period conflict grew between political and religious institutions because of new approaches to their new institutions. In order to going on rightly the function of parliament is the same kind of power or privileges is essential. So we can explain that with the development of Parliamentary system of Government the parliamentary privileges also developed. The sources of parliamentary privileges are MAGANA CARTA BILL OF RIGHT and the PITITION OF RIGHT. During 1485 to 1603 the most popular view traces view traces it from the MAQGNUM COCILUM of Normans. It was a meeting of the great nobles and ecclesiastics of the kingdom and somewhat reassembling to the house of lords of modern time. During the period of 1603 to 1901 there ever conflict between the right of parliament and right of monarch. During the same period with the development of parliamentary system responsibility of Government to words the parliament also developed. Interference of monarch has lessened in the working of Government or in other words it was the end of right of monarch who had now become a nominal head. Which provided that the publication of the parliament. That the house had sole and executing jurisdictions to determine the existence and extend of its privileges, that to disputes and that for any court to decide on matters of privilege in consistent with the determination of either house was contrary to the law of parliaments. In Indian the power and privileges of each house its committees and its member are and affect identical two the power and privileges enjoyed by the British house of common saw on 26 Jan, 1950. The basic law is that all citizens including members of parliament are equal before the law ___________________________ *Assist. Prof. (Law), Institute of Law, AISECT- UNIVERSITY.Raisen, Bhopal M.P. because 1 of are, they all are citizens. There is no defense between papers representative and the people in the ordinary course of thing. But they are interested with different capacity through spared privileges when they In Indian the power and privileges of each house its committees perform their duties in parliament. These privileges do not however expect the member from their normal obligation to society. Parliamentary privileges are a particular group of person or some individuals who are elected by the people they represent them and hence. These privileges are restricted them of through these privileges, they discharge their duties kin the legislature for the assembly. These are two types of parliamentary privileges firstly, privileges of the house parliament has power to grand permission to publish to publish to speeches and debates which took place in the parliament. It can give permission to broadcast the proceeding that is going in the parliament. I can give permission to broadcast the proceedings that are going in the parliament. If media and press world publisher or broadcast any proceeding of the parliament without the permission one of the house then house has the power to take action against publisher and the broadcaster. House4 has the right to control and coordinate all the internal proceedings of the house and no outside agency can interfere in the proceedings of the house. A member parliament has right to right to give speech in the house and participate in debate and he will not be insurable to and any court for anything said in the house, provided then he should do or say anything against the dignity of the court. The freedom of speech and expression of any person is limited t parliamentary privi8leges. In parliamentary system of government the executive is accountable t o parliament, so the member of house can scrutinize the functions of the executive by passing difficult question and passing obligation. The house has the power to expel any of its members if he violates any rule for conduct in the house and also has the right to exclude the strangers from it proceedings i.e. the person who is not a member of officer of the house. These by, the house has supreme body regulates as to how its member should behave and what statements should or should not g outside the four wall of the house. The house has the right to regulate its own composition i.e. to fill his casual vacancies to regulate the disputed election within the house, to determine the legal disqualifications of members; the house also has the right to determine the legal disqualification of member. The house also has the right to determine the salary, Allowances and other perquisites of its member’s thought various house committees. Any one committing breach of privileges of the4 house is liable to be punished. It determines that what are parliamentary privileges and whether its breach has been done or not. It can gibe expulsion, suspension or imprisonment to its members or others person against breach of parliamentary privileges. Parliamentary privileges protect its member freedom from the arrest in civil cases up to 40 days before and after the meeting in the house. However member not perfected its member from criminal charges. A member who is imprisonment by orders of court got no special privileges. Member of Parliament has also the right to maintain the secrecy of the parliament and no person or association can publish the speeches of the Member of Parliament without the permission of the parliament. During the time of war every house has the right to call its member secretly to participation a secret or most confidential to check out the future course of the action. The members of parliament has right to vote on any matter, according t their wishes based on their concise but they cannot vote against the party whip. His has been regard as press passes on the personal freedom of the member, but was regarded as necessity to maintain parties discipline. Limits of parliamentary system have been given by the court. Court will not interfere in any matter relating to parliamentary privilege. But parliament is also support to will, also not make privileges by different decision we came to the conclusion that parliament has the to describe reserve its privileges. There is line of balance between parliamentary privileges and power courts. Parliamentary privileges were made by parliament whereas it is described and limits were fixed by court, which is custodian of constitution. If the balance between them is last either parliamentary privileges will turn into ill discipline or they will last their meaning. For the betterment of Democratic institution to work in proper way, the balance should be maintained; the parliamentary Privileges should not be taken for granted by M.P. premises of their special rights. Parliamentary privileges should be described in term of fundamental right Article 19 (1) A, and Article 105 (1), Article 194 (1), provide the right to speech and right to expression but their meaning is different. But it is not such in Article 194 the question arises that what should be regarded as first, freedom of person or parliamentary privileges The point gained momentum in Reddy’s case and the Keshav singh case. We come to the conclusion that house has the right to control its internal machinery and can issue arrest warrant against any person who has made contempt of hourse in case of contempt of house by the outside the court can issue arrest warrant under Article 32 226. There is no point of row in fundamental right and parliamentary privileges cannot be given priority over fundamental right, equilibrium should be maintained between them To describe the parliamentary privileges a committee was setup in Britain 1986, which have certain suggestion for amendment and development of parliament privileges. Committee’s recommendations that the representative should understand the problem of the people, which finally help them in enhancing their subject values. Further it was also thought to grant people right to speak against the house in order to make their representative orders stand them. There should be code of be code of conduct for the member house. Common people should have knowledge about the income and expenditure of member parliament trough the parliament. The only behind parliamentary privileges is that member who represent the people are not n any way obstructed in the discharge of their parliamentary duties and are able to express their views freely and fearlessly inside the house and committee of parliament without incurring any legal action on that account. Privileges of the members of members are intended to facilitate them in doing their work to advance the interest of people. They are not meant to be privileges against the people on against the freedom of press. Recently the National Commission to Review the Working of Constitution: The commission recommended that the time has come to define and delimit privileges to deed to be necessary for the free and independent functioning of the parliament. It should not be necessary to run to the 195’s position in the House of Commons every time. Question arises as to be what King of legal protection or immunity an ember has in relation to order work in the house. The law of immunity of a member under the parliamentary privileges law was tested in 8. P.V.Narsingha Rao v. State. The substance of the charge was that certain members of parliament had conspired to bribe certain other members to vote against the no confident motion in parliament. By the majority decision the court arrived at the conclusion that while bribe – givers who were members of parliament would not claim immunity under Art. 105. The bribe takers also member of parliament could claim such immunity they had actually spoken for voted in the house in manner indicated by the Bribe-givers.8 It is obvious for voted in the house in manner indicated by the Bribe-givers. It is interpretations of the immunity of members of justice fair play and good conduct expected from Member of Parliament. Freedom of speech on side the house cannot be used by them to solicit or to accept bribes, which is an affiance under the criminal law of the country. The decision of the court in the aforesaid can makes it necessary to classify the true intent of the member. It is essential to put it beyond doubt that the protection against legal action Art. 105 do not extend to correct acts. A second issue that was raised in the case concerned the authority contempt to sanction prosecution against a member in respect of an offences involve acceptance of a consideration for speaking and voting in a particular manner or for not voting in either house of parliament. A member of parliament is not appointed by any by any authority. He is elected by his or her constituency by the state assembly and takes his/her seat on taking the oath prescribed by the constitution. While functioning as a member or he/she is subject to the disciplinary the control of the presiding officer in respect of function with on the parliament or in its committees. It would, therefore stand to reason sanction for prosecution should be given by the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be The commission recommends that art105(2) may be amended clarify that the immunity enjoyed by members of parliament under parliamentary privileges does not cover corrupt act committees by them in connection with their duties in the house or otherwise corrupt act’s wood vote in a particular manner for provided that no court will take cognizance of offence arising out of members action in the house without prior sanction of the speaker or the chairman as the case may be Art.194(2) may also be similarly amended in relation to the members of state legislature. The recommendation of the commission seems to me a right step to give new meaning to parliamentary privileges in there changing political and social circumstance. The parliamentary privileges are sine out non for the functioning of the institution dedicated to the people through its representative. The more alive is the house the more living would be its members. They must be in position to rise to voice of the people in most effective manner so that the purpose of creating g the institution known as parliament or legislature may be served effectively. Select bibliography: 1. Constitutional Development in India by M.Ramaswame. 2. Inian Constitutional law (4th ED.) bYM.P. Jain 3. Constitutionof IndiaBy V.N.Shukla. 4. Constitutional of India by jai Narayan Pandey. 5. Our Parliament By shubhash C. kashyap. 6. Constitutional law 16th Ed. By Wade. 7. Constitutional law of India by H.M.Shervai. 8. P.V.Narsingha Rao vs. State (C.B.I./S.P.E) AIR 1998 S.C.2120. 9. Modern political Contitutions by C.V.Strong. 9. Landmark’s in Indian Constitution and National Development by G.M.Singh.