Parliamentary Privileges

What is parliamentary privilege?

Parliamentary privilege refers to the special rights and immunities enjoyed by Parliament as an institution and by MPs in their individual capacity. Without these protections, members would not be able to carry out the duties the Constitution gives them, such as debating freely and questioning the government.

Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution deal with these privileges. Article 105 covers Parliament, and Article 194 covers the State Legislatures. The Constitution expects Parliament to pass a law that spells out these rights, privileges, and immunities in detail. No such law has been made so far. In the absence of a written code, the privileges are understood mainly through British parliamentary customs and past practice.

Some privileges are already set out in the Constitution and in long standing practice. These include:

• Freedom of speech inside Parliament.
• Immunity for a member from any court case for anything said, or any vote given, in Parliament or in any of its committees.
• Immunity from court action for publishing any report, paper, vote, or proceeding brought out under the authority of either House.
• Courts cannot question the validity of parliamentary proceedings on the ground of an alleged procedural irregularity.
• No officer or member who has the power to regulate procedure, conduct business, or keep order can be taken to court for using those powers.
• Unless malice is proved, no person can be held liable in court for publishing a substantially true report of the proceedings of either House. This protection also applies to reports sent by wireless telegraphy. It does not apply to publishing the proceedings of a secret sitting of a House.

What counts as a breach of privilege?

According to the Lok Sabha Secretariat, when an individual or a body ignores or attacks any of the privileges, rights, or immunities of members, whether individually or collectively, it is called a breach of privilege, and the House can punish it.

According to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, it is the House that decides what counts as a breach of privilege, and its power to punish covers both members and outsiders, who are referred to as strangers. The House can act against any conduct that breaks its privileges, whether it happens inside the House or somewhere else. So even people who are not MPs can be punished for a breach.

Apart from a breach of privilege, a House may also begin contempt proceedings for an offence against the authority or dignity of the House. Examples include disobeying its lawful orders, or making libellous statements against the House, its members, or its officers.

What is the penalty for a breach of privilege or contempt of the House?

If a person is found guilty of a breach of privilege or contempt of the House, they may be sent to jail, or given an admonition or a reprimand. In the case of MPs, two further punishments are possible for contempt: suspension and expulsion from the House.

The House does not always punish. In a 2007 breach of privilege complaint against Ambassador Ronen Sen, the Lok Sabha Committee on Privileges found that Shri Sen had not used the phrase "headless chicken" to describe MPs or politicians, and he was not punished. In 2008, an editor of an Urdu weekly called the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha a "coward" over a decision he had made. The Privileges Committee found the editor guilty of a breach, but instead of recommending punishment it concluded that the House would guard its own dignity better by not giving too much importance to such irresponsible writing, produced only for cheap publicity.

What is a privilege motion?

To raise a matter of breach of privilege or contempt in either House, an MP must first get the consent of the presiding officer: the Speaker in the Lok Sabha and the Chairman in the Rajya Sabha. Under the Lok Sabha rule book, a member who wishes to raise a question of privilege must inform the Secretary General in writing before 10 a.m. on the day the matter is to be raised.

Not more than one question of privilege may be raised in a single sitting, and the rules say the question should be about a recent matter. After receiving the notice, the Speaker may allow or refuse the raising of the issue. If consent is granted, the member must seek the permission of the House, and the motion needs the support of at least 25 members to be taken up.

Once it is admitted, the House may take up the matter itself or, as usually happens, refer it to the Committee of Privileges. In the Lok Sabha this committee has 15 members drawn from different political parties, and in the Rajya Sabha it has 10 members. The House then waits for the committee's report before deciding what to do.

The way forward: the need for codification

One of the most debated questions in this area is the codification of privileges. Articles 105 and 194 give only a broad outline of privileges and leave it to Parliament to write them down in a proper law. This has still not been done.

Because the privileges have not been codified, there is room for the power to be misused. Parliamentary privilege is not a licence to do anything and everything. It is meant to work as a boundary within which a legislator can function freely and fearlessly. You can revise more governance topics in our Indian Polity study notes.

Why it still matters

For years the biggest open question about parliamentary privilege was a simple one: does the immunity for what an MP says or how an MP votes also protect a lawmaker who takes a bribe? On 4 March 2024, the Supreme Court of India answered it in the case of Sita Soren v. Union of India. A seven judge Constitution Bench, led by the then Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, ruled unanimously that MPs and MLAs do not enjoy immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) when they accept a bribe to speak or vote in a certain way.

The case involved a Jharkhand MLA accused of taking money during a 2012 Rajya Sabha election. The 2024 ruling overturned an older 1998 judgment, P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, which had given lawmakers wide protection in bribery cases. The Court held that privilege must be tied to the genuine work of the House, and that taking a bribe is never a part of a legislator's real duties. In plain words: freedom of speech in Parliament protects honest debate, not corruption.

This is exactly why the debate about codification, in the section above, still matters today. The real scope of privilege is being decided case by case in the courts, rather than by one clear written law that everyone can read. To see how living institutions connect to the world around you, explore the wider Learnacy Hub, or browse the full library of study notes on Resources.

Sources

1. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Rajya Sabha at Work, Chapter 8: Parliamentary Privileges
2. Supreme Court Observer, Sita Soren v. Union of India: case background and judgment
3. Sita Soren v. Union of India, judgment summary, 4 March 2024

Key takeaways

• Parliamentary privilege refers to special rights and immunities for Parliament as an institution and MPs individually, allowing them to debate freely and question the government.
• Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution cover parliamentary privileges for Parliament and State Legislatures respectively, but the Constitution expects Parliament to pass a law codifying these in detail, which has not been done yet.
• Key privileges include freedom of speech in Parliament, immunity from court cases for statements made in the House, protection for publishing reports under authority, and protection for officers using their powers.
• A breach of privilege occurs when someone attacks the privileges of members, and the House can punish both members and non-members (outsiders) with penalties including jail, admonition, reprimand, suspension, or expulsion.
• To raise a privilege motion, an MP needs consent of the presiding officer, must give notice before 10am, and needs support from at least 25 members before the matter is referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Test yourself

Which articles of the Constitution deal with parliamentary privileges?

Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution deal with these privileges. Article 105 covers Parliament, and Article 194 covers the State Legislatures.

What is required for an MP to raise a privilege motion in the Lok Sabha?

An MP must get consent of the Speaker, inform the Secretary General in writing before 10am on the day, and the motion needs support from at least 25 members to be taken up.

What did the Supreme Court rule in the 2024 Sita Soren v. Union of India case regarding parliamentary privilege?

The Supreme Court ruled that MPs and MLAs do not enjoy immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) when they accept a bribe to speak or vote in a certain way.

Frequently asked questions

What is parliamentary privilege and why does it exist?

Parliamentary privilege refers to the special rights and immunities granted to Parliament as an institution and to MPs individually to enable them to carry out their constitutional duties, such as debating freely and questioning the government, without interference or fear of legal consequences.

What constitutes a breach of privilege according to the Lok Sabha Secretariat?

A breach of privilege occurs when an individual or body ignores or attacks the privileges, rights, or immunities of members, either individually or collectively, and the House can punish such conduct whether it happens inside or outside the House.

How does contempt of the House differ from a breach of privilege?

While a breach of privilege involves attacking the rights or immunities of members, contempt of the House refers to conduct that offends the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobeying its orders or making libellous statements against the House, its members, or officers.

Who has the authority to decide what counts as a breach of privilege or contempt, and can outsiders be punished?

The House itself decides what constitutes a breach of privilege or contempt, and its power to punish extends to both members and outsiders, referred to as 'strangers,' even for actions occurring outside the House.