January 22, 2026

Parliamentary Privileges Decoded Freedom of Speech, Arrest Immunity & The 2024 Verdict

Parliamentary Privileges Decoded: Freedom of Speech, Arrest Immunity & The 2024 Verdict description: "The definitive guide to Parliamentary Privileges (Article 105 & 194). Understand the difference between Breach of Privilege and Contempt of House, the immunity from Civil Arrest, and the landmark 2024 Supreme Court verdict ending immunity for bribery." date: 2026-01-13 author: Civics Desk | Sansad Online tags: [Parliamentary Privileges, Article 105, Breach of Privilege, Contempt of House, Freedom of Speech, Immunity from Arrest, Sita Soren Case, Cash for Query, Raja Ram Pal Case]

🛡️ Parliament 101: Parliamentary Privileges (The Shield)

The Immunity System

The special rights that make Parliament supreme.

  • Constitutional Basis: Article 105 (Parliament) & Article 194 (State Legislatures).
  • Key Immunity: No MP can be sued for anything said or any vote given in the House.
  • The Penalty: The House can send you to Jail for "Breach of Privilege."
  • The 2024 Update: Taking a bribe to vote is NO LONGER protected by privilege (Sita Soren Judgment).
🏛️ THE "SAFE HOUSE" CONCEPT: Imagine a place where you can criticize the Prime Minister, name a corrupt industrialist, or question a General's strategy without fear of being dragged to court for defamation. That place is the Floor of the House. To ensure MPs speak fearlessly for the people, the Constitution gives them a "Super-Citizen" status inside the chamber.

Introduction: Why Do MPs Need Special Rights?

(Privilege vs. Equality)

In a democracy, everyone is equal before the law. So why do MPs get special "Privileges"?

The logic is simple: Independence. If an MP fears that a powerful business tycoon will sue them for ₹100 Crores if they expose a scam in Parliament, the MP will stay silent. If an MP fears that the Police (controlled by the Government) will arrest them on a fake charge just before a crucial vote, the Parliament cannot function.

Therefore, Article 105 grants MPs certain immunities. However, these privileges are often called a "double-edged sword." While they protect democracy, they are sometimes used to silence journalists or shield criminal behavior.

This guide decodes the two types of privileges (Individual & Collective), explains the difference between "Breach" and "Contempt," and analyzes the historic Supreme Court battle over whether an MP can take cash to vote.

👤 Part 1: Individual Privileges (For the MP)

These rights belong to the MP personally. They travel with them.

1. Freedom of Speech (Absolute Immunity)

  • The Rule: "No member... shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said... in Parliament." (Article 105(2)).
  • Meaning: An MP can say anything inside the House. Even if it is false, defamatory, or malicious, no court can punish them.
  • The Restriction: Article 121 says MPs cannot discuss the conduct of Judges (SC/HC) unless they are moving a Motion for Removal (Impeachment).
  • House Control: While courts can't punish them, the Speaker can. If an MP uses unparliamentary language, the Speaker can expunge (delete) it from the records or suspend the MP.

2. Freedom from Arrest (Civil Cases Only)

  • The Rule: An MP cannot be arrested in a Civil Case (e.g., property dispute, money recovery) during:
    • The Session of Parliament.
    • 40 days before the session starts.
    • 40 days after the session ends.
  • The Catch: This immunity does NOT apply to Criminal Cases (Murder, Corruption, Rioting) or Preventive Detention (NSA/UAPA).
  • Case Law: In K. Anandan Nambiar vs Chief Secretary (1966), the SC ruled that an MP can be arrested for criminal charges even during the session. The only requirement is that the Speaker must be informed immediately.

3. Exemption from Jury Service

  • An MP cannot be forced to appear as a witness or juror in a court when Parliament is in session. Their duty to the House comes first.

🏛️ Part 2: Collective Privileges (For the House)

These rights belong to the Parliament as a group.

1. Right to Publish Debates

  • The House has the exclusive right to publish its own reports and debates.
  • 44th Amendment Act (1978): Gave media the right to publish "true reports" of proceedings without fear, except for "Secret Sittings" or "Expunged Remarks."

2. Right to Exclude Strangers

  • The Speaker can order any non-member (Journalist, Visitor, Staff) to leave the House at any time.
  • This is used to hold Secret Sittings (e.g., during the 1971 War) to discuss sensitive matters.

3. Right to Punish for Contempt

  • This is the most feared power. Parliament can act as a Court.
  • It can punish anyone (MP or Outsider) for Breach of Privilege or Contempt of House.
  • Punishments:
    • Admonition: A warning.
    • Reprimand: A formal scolding.
    • Suspension: Banned from attending the session.
    • Expulsion: Losing the MP seat permanently (e.g., Mahua Moitra Case, 2023).
    • Imprisonment: Yes, the Parliament can send you to jail. (e.g., In 2017, the Karnataka Assembly sentenced two journalists to 1-year jail for defamatory articles. Though later stayed by courts).

⚖️ Breach of Privilege vs. Contempt of House

These terms are often used interchangeably, but there is a nuance.

Breach of Privilege Contempt of House
Violation of a specific right (e.g., Arresting MP without informing Speaker). Any act that lowers the dignity of the House (e.g., Throwing pamphlets, shouting slogans).
Technical violation. Broad offense against authority.
All Breaches are Contempt. Not all Contempts are Breaches.
  • Example: If a newspaper misreports a speech, it is a Breach of Privilege. If a visitor jumps into the Lok Sabha chamber (like in Dec 2023), it is Contempt of House.

👩‍⚖️ Part 3: The "Bribe for Vote" Verdict (2024)

For 26 years, India had a bizarre law: If an MP takes a bribe to vote in Parliament, they cannot be prosecuted.

The Old Law (P.V. Narasimha Rao Case, 1998)

  • Background: In 1993, JMM MPs took bribes to save the P.V. Narasimha Rao govt in a No-Confidence Motion.
  • The 1998 Verdict: A 5-judge bench ruled (3:2) that since the "Vote" happened inside Parliament, Article 105 protects the MPs from criminal prosecution for bribery.
  • The Absurdity: It created a situation where an MP who took the bribe but didn't vote could be jailed, but the one who took the bribe and voted was safe.

The New Law (Sita Soren vs Union of India, March 2024)

  • The Change: A 7-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud overruled the 1998 judgment.
  • The Logic:
    • Privilege is meant to protect "free speech," not "crime."
    • The offence of bribery is complete the moment the money is accepted outside the House. It has nothing to do with the actual vote inside.
    • Conclusion: MPs/MLAs do NOT have immunity from prosecution for bribery. They can be arrested like any common criminal.

⚔️ Part 4: The Press vs. Parliament (The Searchlight Case)

Can Parliament punish a journalist for writing an article? This is the eternal conflict between Article 19(1)(a) (Free Speech) and Article 105 (Privilege).

  • The Case: MSM Sharma vs Sri Krishna Sinha (1959) — famously known as the Searchlight Case.
  • The Issue: A journalist published remarks that the Speaker had ordered to be "expunged." The Assembly sent him a notice for Breach of Privilege. He went to the Supreme Court arguing his Fundamental Right to Speech.
  • The Verdict: The Supreme Court ruled that Privileges override Fundamental Rights (Article 19). If there is a conflict, the Privilege prevails.
  • Why? Because the Constitution places Privileges on a special pedestal.

📜 The Debate: To Codify or Not?

The Constitution says Privileges shall be defined by Parliament by law. Until then, they will be the same as the British House of Commons (as of 1950).

  • 75 Years Later: Parliament has NOT passed any law to codify privileges.
  • Why?
    • If Codified: It becomes a "Law" under Article 13. This means it can be struck down by the Supreme Court if it violates Fundamental Rights.
    • If Uncodified: It remains a Constitutional provision. The Courts generally hesitate to interfere with Constitutional provisions.
  • The Result: MPs prefer it uncodified to keep the judiciary away.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. Can an MP be arrested inside the Parliament?

Not without the Speaker's permission.

  • No arrest (Civil or Criminal) can be made within the precincts of the House while it is in session, without the permission of the Presiding Officer. This maintains the sanctity of the sanctuary.

Q2. Is the Prime Minister subject to Privilege?

Yes.

  • If the PM misleads the House (e.g., gives false data on employment), an MP can move a Privilege Motion against the PM. It has happened, though rarely admitted by the Speaker.

Q3. What is the "Privileges Committee"?

It is a Standing Committee (15 members in LS) that investigates privilege complaints.

  • It acts like a semi-judicial body. It summons the accused (e.g., a Police Commissioner or Editor), hears their defense, and recommends punishment to the House.

Q4. Can Parliament expel its own member?

Yes.

  • In the Raja Ram Pal Case (2007) (Cash for Query scam), the Supreme Court upheld the Parliament's power to expel members for "conduct unbecoming of a member." The Court said it can review if the expulsion was illegal, but generally, the House is the master of its own composition.

Q5. Can I criticize a speech made in Parliament?

Yes, but carefully.

  • You can criticize the content or policy (fair comment).
  • You cannot attribute motives (e.g., "The MP said this because he was paid by China") or use libelous language. That would be Contempt of House.

Bookmark this page. Privilege is the armor of the MP; knowing its chinks is the duty of the Citizen.