Public Interest Vs Political Interest - A Critical Study On Parliamentary Privileges

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:49:20.544758+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:09:57.877+00:00

PUBLIC INTEREST VS POLITICAL INTEREST: A

CRITICAL STUDY ON PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

Krisha Jain, BBA LLB, Auro University, Surat

ABSTRACT

This paper dwells into the purpose as to why parliamentary privileges were incorporated into the Indian Constitution and how are they being exercised. The evolution of parliamentary privileges from monarchial rule to the present day is seen. After analyzing Article 105,122,194,212 of the constitution and applying it to the various case laws the scope of judiciary’s intervention over the years has shown the result that Parliament has major autonomy over its procedural matters. The clashes within the parliament and their consequent effect on the public and democracy raising question on the usage of these privileges which are granted by constitution to maintain transparency, accountability and integrity of the parliamentary functions. This paper focuses on questions like: whether these privileges preserve democracy's ability to function or stifles its vital voices?

Do the people in power or the public benefit more from these privileges? Keywords: Parliamentary privileges, Democracy, Public interest, Transparency, Codification.

INTRODUCTION

Parliamentary privileges raise an intriguing conflict between preserving democracy and maybe jeopardizing it. Even now, this delicate balance is still changing. The Human Aspect of Privilege in Parliament In India, parliamentary privileges are more than just dry constitutional clauses. they are dynamic tools that influence the day-to-day operations of our democracy. The issue is how elected officials could speak truth to power in the absence of some kind of protection. The purpose of these rights is to allow MPs to speak out about difficult realities without worrying about reprisals. However, there is always a chance that it will be abused, just like any power.

EVOLUTION

The British Model The British parliament, which provided a lot of the model for India's system, saw privilege as safeguarding the institution rather than as a personal benefit. This distinction is essential-it's about protecting democracy, not people. This point is completely misunderstood by many citizens. When people hear the term "parliamentary privilege," they frequently think that MPs are exempted from the law. That was never the goal. Instead, it aims to establish an environment free from fear where transparent, open debates on public issues can take place. The House of Commons in England decided in 1641 that members may not publish their speeches without permission, which seemed like a protective and regulating measure. Parliamentary privileges had this intrinsic tension from the beginning itself.

Examining how these ideas were adopted in India, especially through the Government of India Act of 1919, reveals how the bicameral legislature supported free speech while enforcing restrictions on it. Parliamentary resolutions struck a balance between privilege and responsibility in ways that still seem relevant today, limiting criticism of provincial administrations and prohibiting pointless readings. Colonial Underpinnings: The Foundation of Contemporary Privileges These advantages' development over India's colonial era reveals an intriguing tale of

progressive empowerment: On the one hand, there is the public's entitlement to accountability and transparency. People are entitled to know the actions and words of their politicians. Representatives, on the other hand, require protection to carry out their duties efficiently-to openly discuss delicate subjects without worrying about potential legal repercussions. This tension has been brought to light by many controversies. There are significant concerns about whether these rights have been overreached when MPs have been exempted from bribery allegations by using privilege claims. Through the years of legislative systems, the evolution of parliamentary privileges is fascinating, the way they were initially intended to serve as democratic shields, may occasionally turn into weapons in political conflicts.

One of the most intriguing phenomena in contemporary administration is the conflict between political advantage and the general welfare. 1 The Precarious Power Balance The dual character of parliamentary privileges is observed. Legislators were given these unique privileges and rights in order to safeguard democracy's workings and guarantee that representatives may express themselves without worrying about reprisals. However, public has seen firsthand how readily these same safeguards can be used as a political tool. Question is Do the people in power or the general public benefit more from these privileges? Presiding officers in many parliaments across the world are accused of showing partiality to the ruling parties. It raises serious concerns about institutional integrity when the referee appears to be wearing team colours during parliamentary proceedings.

Are we seeing the preservation of democracy or the preservation of power when a House has the authority to control its operations, outlaw publications, set its own rules, and punish members essentially without outside intervention? Speaking Responsibly vs. Speaking Freely This tension is most evident in the fundamental aspect of parliamentary privilege, which is 1 Dr. Krishna Kishor Trivedi, Historical And Conceptual Development Of Parliamentary Privileges In India, (July 2, 2022), https://ijmer. s3. amazonaws. com/pdf/volume11/volume11-issue6(6)/2. pdf.

freedom of expression. The lawmakers from all political systems, they stress the need of this protection for fearlessly serving citizens. However, this same independence leads to a paradox of responsibility: • During meetings, members must be protected against civil arrest. • The House must continue to have the power to deal with disruptive behaviour. • Sanctions, which range from warnings to expulsions, are essential instruments2. Article 105: Powers, Privileges, and Immunities of Parliament and its Members • Clause (1): Provides Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House with the right to free expression. • Clause (2): Gives anything stated or votes cast in Parliament immunity from legal action. • Clause (3): Declares that, unless otherwise specified by legislation, Parliament's privileges would remain the same as they were in the UK House of Commons before to 1947.

• Clause (4): The committees of Parliament are also entitled to these privileges3. It guarantees the independence of the legislature from outside interference. It shields members of parliament from punishment or slander for their remarks in parliament. Judicial action in circumstances of suspected privilege misuse has resulted from a lack of codification. Article 122: Courts Not to Inquire into Proceedings of Parliament • Clause (1): Prevents courts from questioning the validity of parliamentary proceedings on procedural grounds.

2 Y Keerthana Reddy, Clash between parliamentary privileges and fundamental rights, (Apr. 18, 2024),

https://doi.org/10.22271/civillaw.2024.v4.i1a.67.

3 Constitution of India, Article 105 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1251904/

Clause (2): Declares that officers of Parliament (like the Speaker) cannot be subject to legal action for conducting House proceedings. It signifies the separation of powers by restricting judicial intervention in legislative matters. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that unconstitutional acts within Parliament (e. g. , violating fundamental rights) can be reviewed (e. g. , Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha Speaker). 4 Article 194: Powers, Privileges, and Immunities of State Legislatures • Clause (1) under this MLAs in state legislatures are granted the right to freedom of speech. • Clause (2): Offers protection from lawsuits for remarks or votes made in the House. • Clause (3): Until otherwise specified by law, state legislatures enjoy privileges comparable to those of the UK House of Commons (before to 1947). • Clause 4: Legislative committees are entitled to certain privileges5.

It shields state lawmakers who participate in House discussions from prosecution and defamation. Cases of misuse have resulted from a lack of codification, particularly against critics and journalists. Similar to Article 122, but specifically for State Legislatures, Article 212 prohibits courts from interfering in the business of state legislatures. • Clause (1): Prevents courts from raising procedural flaws as grounds for contesting State Legislature actions. • Clause (2) Legislative officers (such as the Speaker and Chairman) are shielded from lawsuits for handling House business6. It strengthens state legislatures' independence from judicial oversight. Courts have the authority to step in when a fundamental right is violated, such as when a member is wrongfully expelled,

4 Constitution of India, Article 122 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1283667/

5 Constitution of India, Article 194 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74909/

6 Constitution of India, Article 212 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1319004/

whilst parliament has the autonomy over procedural errors. The way that these sensible safeguards might excuse irrational behavior is what most concerning factor. There are instances seen where privileges were used to thwart genuine reporting on contentious debates rather than to safeguard democracy, thereby concealing parliamentary action from the very people it is supposed to represent. When Dissent and Privilege Collide The murky waters of "contempt" proceedings are concerning. A risky flexibility that can be used for political purposes is created by the ambiguity surrounding what exactly qualifies as contempt. The members of opposition who were charged with contempt for seemingly innocuous dissent. This begs the unsettling question: are these actions preserving democracy's ability to function or stifling its vital voices?

Courts, Public Accountability, and the Press There are intriguing conflicts in the connection between the court and parliamentary privilege. Courts both challenge and uphold democratic principles when they call upon presiding officers to defend rulings. Press groups are contesting legislative choices in court in some of the most interesting tales seen. These incidents demonstrate how important journalism is in holding those in positions of authority responsible, which is crucial in keeping privileges from being used for political ends. Let us understand it more with case laws: Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly and Ors. 19657

review? Rule:

1. Legislators' parliamentary privileges are outlined in Articles 105 and 194.

2. Courts cannot challenge legislative actions unless there are constitutional grounds,

according to Articles 122 and 212.

3. The link between legislative privileges and fundamental rights.

Analysis:

1. Singh was accused of contempt for handing out a leaflet that was critical of a member

of the Assembly. After he disobeyed orders and persisted in his criticism, the Assembly sentenced him to prison. A constitutional crisis resulted from the Assembly holding the judges in contempt after the High Court granted bail. Pandit M. S. M. Sharma vs Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others, 19588 Issue: Can state legislatures use parliamentary privileges to penalize journalists? Judgement: A journalist who published Assembly proceedings without authorization was disciplined. The

Supreme Court held that, without limitations imposed by basic rights, legislative privileges are paramount. The journalist was punished because Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech) was not absolute. It signifies that Legislative Privileges vs. Press Freedom Journalists are not completely protected. Raja Ram Pal vs The Hon'Ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors, 2007 9

accepting money in exchange for raising parliamentary questions was valid?

2. Whether parliamentary privileges extend to expelling members for unethical conduct?

Rule:

1. Articles 105 & 194: Grant privileges to legislators but prohibit members from

accepting financial benefits for parliamentary actions.

2. Articles 122 & 212: Courts cannot question legislative proceedings unless there is a

constitutional violation.

3. Code of Conduct for Members: Prohibits accepting fees, remuneration, or benefits

for parliamentary actions. Analysis:

1. Shri Aniruddha Bahal, Ms. Suhasini Rajand, and Shri Kumar Badal, posing as

representatives of a fictitious company, offered money to MPs in exchange for raising questions in Lok Sabha.

2. Ten Lok Sabha members accepted the money directly and through their assistants,

leading to their expulsion based on a committee report finding their conduct unethical and unbecoming of Parliament members.

3. The Leader of the House moved a Motion for expulsion, which was adopted by voice

vote on 23.12.2005, resulting in their removal.

4. In Rajya Sabha, Dr. Chhattrapal Singh Lodha was similarly found guilty of breaching

Part V of the Code of Conduct. After a report from the Ethics Committee, the House adopted the motion for his expulsion, reinforcing the necessity to uphold parliamentary integrity. Conclusion:

1. The case reaffirmed that parliamentary privileges do not shield members from

disciplinary action for ethical misconduct.

2. The power to expel members for bringing disrepute to parliamentary democracy

was upheld, ensuring accountability and maintaining public trust in legislative institutions. State Of Karnataka vs Union Of India & Another, 197710 Issue: Can courts examine resolutions that state legislatures have passed? Judgement: The Supreme Court held that unless there is a violation of basic rights or constitutional principles, judges cannot meddle in legislative processes. It signifies that judicial scrutiny is allowed in the event of a constitutional infringement while reaffirming parliamentary autonomy. P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State, 199811 Issue:

1. Whether the prosecution of Members of Parliament (MPs) for accepting bribes to vote

in a particular manner in a No-Confidence Motion is barred under Article 105(2) of the Constitution (which provides immunity to MPs for their parliamentary actions).

2. Whether MPs qualify as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988.

3. Whether sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 is necessary for MPs.

4. Whether the offense of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC applies to the

MPs involved in the bribery scandal. Rule:

1. Article 105(2) of the Indian Constitution grants MPs immunity for speeches and

10 State Of Karnataka vs Union Of India & Another, 1977 AIR 1978 SC 68

11 P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State, 1998 SC 2930

votes in Parliament, but this immunity does not extend to accepting bribes.

2. Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 defines "public servant," and

prior case laws has held that MPs fall under this definition.

3. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires sanction for

prosecution only when the accused is still holding office at the time of prosecution.

4. Section 120B of the IPC penalizes criminal conspiracy, including bribery-related

agreements. Application:

1. The Supreme Court maintained the Special Judge's ruling, concurring that MPs are only

shielded from being questioned about their votes and comments in Parliament by Article 105(2), not from bribery-related offences.

2. According to the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, MPs are considered public

workers and are therefore subject to its requirements, the Court confirmed. Section 19 penalty was judged unnecessary because the MPs in question were no longer in office at the time of prosecution.

3. Given that there was an agreement to take bribes in order to influence the No-

Confidence Motion, the evidence supported a criminal conspiracy prosecution under Section 120B IPC. Conclusion: The Supreme Court decided that Members of Parliament who took bribes in exchange for voting in a No-Confidence Motion could face prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and that they are not immune from prosecution for crimes relating to corruption under Article 105(2). Since they were no longer in office, the prerequisite of prior sanction for prosecution did not apply. The bribery and criminal conspiracy charges were maintained. Parliamentary Privileges: Conflicts Between Assemblies and Governments The Viewpoint

Parliamentary privileges in legislative systems, is facing ongoing struggle between assemblies and the governments which they are supposed to hold responsible. This conflict tells us a lot about the true nature of democracy and how it operates behind the scenes. The Situation Where Governments Ignore The government's stance on Assembly privileges may either make democratic institutions stronger or weaker. It is rarely about abstract ideals when governments lose empathy for these protections; rather, it is about power. The tendency is very concerning: governments frequently uphold parliamentary privileges until they become incompatible with their goals. "Institutional integrity" thus abruptly becomes negotiable. When privilege issues impacted political interests, they fear these privileges will lead to threatening the democracy.

States and Centre: The Domino Effect of Privilege The way privileges operate has intriguing knock-on implications due of India's quasi-federal system. Uttarakhand practices may be impacted by a Tamil Nadu verdict about privileges. Because of this interdependence, privileges cannot be considered as disputes in a vacuum; rather, they are a component of a broader constitutional discussion. It has been observed how some conceptions of privilege proliferate throughout state legislatures, occasionally giving local political concerns precedence over more general constitutional precepts. These trends show how privilege might stop serving as an institutional safeguard and instead turn into a partisan tool. 12 The Lawmaker in Prison Detention of a lawmaker is one of the most used feature of parliamentary privileges.

The actual power dynamics between legislative immunity and legal accountability are made clear by these conflicts. Legislative protections do not grant insulation from the repercussions of confinement, despite what many people believe. As a concrete illustration of how privilege has its limits when confronted with legal accountability. The way that these circumstances differ

12 Hansraj,Privileges Of Members Of Parliament In India, (July 20, 2015),

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144519811.pdf.

based on the political affinities of the imprisoned lawmaker and the governing administration are most intriguing. Political convenience seems to influence how the same norms are interpreted. In Andhra Pradesh Assembly hell broke loose when a member was detained without notifying the House, which is a fundamental legislative practice. Discipline was meted out to the responsible officer, but what really stood out was the lesson it conveyed: even in a democracy, certain citizens-the elected ones-have unique notification rights that others do not. The human battle to maintain impartiality is evident in the Lok Sabha discussions. The personal struggles that many presiding officers endure-torn between party loyalty and institutional duty-are evident beneath the formal language of these transcripts.

When Legislative Power and Law Enforcement Collide The decision made by the Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha offers an ideal (example of privilege limitations). • Legislators are not exempted from being arrested for crimes committed outside of the assembly; privilege has its limits. • Legislators are not required to be released for sessions under the Preventive Detention Act-legal accountability is paramount. However, as a symbolic bow to legislative dignity, arrests made on legislative property require adherence to protocol. This fine balance demonstrates how privilege functions in reality as opposed to theory. It has been seen that these ideas are put to the test time and time again, with the results frequently relying more on political calculations than on constitutional fundamentals.

Human Dignity and Handcuffs Legislators cannot be handcuffed for reasons of privilege alone; human dignity is at stake. However, there are exceptions, and with good reason. Parliamentary personnel stress the institution's honour, while police officers complain about lawmakers receiving preferential treatment. This conflict aptly captures the conundrum of privilege: preserving institutions without giving rise to a legal elite.

Common Privilege, Juries, and Witnesses Even seemingly ordinary situations, such as when lawmakers are called as witnesses or are excused from jury duty, can give rise to some of the most illuminating privilege issues. These "analogous privileges" are noteworthy because they incorporate legislative immunity into routine legal procedures. Legislators' uninterrupted ability to carry out their duties is the rationale, but in practice, elected politicians may gain a distinct legal position. It is certain that the way these commonplace rights are used says a lot more about the state of a democracy than lofty constitutional proclamations. Having the Status of "Honourable" Ever see how Indian lawmakers are granted more perks than their British counterparts?

Although the honorific title "Honourable" may not seem like much, it represents our postcolonial aspiration to give our delegates more status than they had under British control. The observation of intriguing discussions around the revocation of this title for local members has been made. these discussions expose profound fears regarding recognition and prestige within our political elite. These conversations are more frequently about perceived respect and individual dignity than they are about constitutional principles. The Daily Benefits The development of travel allowances over time reveals a similar pattern. In a nation where many individuals struggle with basic transport, the continuous development of privileges, such as first-class flights, daily stipends, taxi expenditures, and even automobile haulage expenses, is difficult to defend.

When Privilege and the Press Collide The press-legislative interaction demonstrates the practical operation of privilege. After monitoring a large number of "premature press publications," a trend has been observed: privilege violations frequently appear most serious when they provide information that politicians would rather keep secret. An important turning point was reached when Speaker Hukam Singh ruled that arrests made outside of the House are not protected by legislative privilege. Legislators accept this restriction while advocating for more extensive safeguards in

public; this paradox illustrates how privilege has both legal and political dimensions. Respect vs. Punishment An unsettling reality is revealed by the calls to give Presiding Officers more penal authority many legislatures favor punitive methods of upholding dignity over depending on individual behaviour and respect for one another. The Legislative Assembly President's support for expanded rights is consistent in Provincial Councils, particularly in Bengal, where there is a steadfast conviction that power demands particular safeguards. This kind of thinking reflects a basic misinterpretation of democratic legitimacy, which stems from public confidence rather than institutional protection13. Misconduct, Money, and Moral Authority The ultimate litmus test for the appropriate use of privilege is still financial accountability.

The decisions concerning failures to provide accounting bring to light the basic conflict between public accountability and parliamentary sovereignty. Legislators who have been implicated in misconduct-threatening colleagues, concealing records, or revealing confidential information-are involved in the most concerning situations. These incidents make us face the difficult question of whether persons who create laws should be given preferential treatment when they are breaking norms. Striking a Balance in a Disorganized Democracy The Indian legislative privilege, when appropriately limited, they fulfil a vital function. For example, the freedom to petition without fear safeguards democratic engagement. However, privilege turns into a threat when it establishes a distinct class of people or protects the powerful from responsibility.

The way privilege boundaries have changed from state to state demonstrates that this is still an open discussion in our democracy and that it needs to be continuously reevaluated in order to strike a balance between transparency and authority. How privilege disputes highlight the 13 Dr. Parveen Qamar, Parliamentary Privileges: Is Codification a Solution In India Now? , Paper Teplate, (Aug. 3, 2020), https://old. rrjournals. com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/88-95_RRIJM200507020. pdf.

inconsistencies in our democracy. We expect our representatives to be treated as equal citizens under the law, but we also require specific protections for them. Resolving this conflict is about the type of democracy we want to create, not merely the law. 14

CONCLUSION

There is a need for Parliamentary privileges having well-defined boundaries in order to support democracy rather than erode it. As the mediator between public accountability and legislative independence, the judiciary must play a crucial role in this situation. Although courts have often been reluctant to get involved in parliamentary matters, they occasionally have to do so when privileges turn into a barrier to reasonable public scrutiny. While closing the gaps that allow corruption or the misuse of power, we should maintain the fundamental goal of safeguarding free and honest legislative discourse. More public understanding of the true meaning of parliamentary privileges is maybe the most critical issue. Citizens can hold their politicians more successfully when they have a deeper understanding of these ideas.

The parliamentary privileges can still be used as intended, but only if significant changes are made:

1. By codifying privileges, boundaries would be clearly defined, and subjective

application would be avoided.

2. Strengthened judicial review may aid in bringing privileges into line with constitutional

principles.

3. Increased freedom of the press would increase openness.

4. Restoring the system's credibility would need true presiding officer impartiality.

The most crucial thing is to return privileges to their original function, which was to serve citizens rather than political agendas. There will always be a conflict between political and public interests, and maybe there should be. However, this conflict should lead to accountability rather than insulation in a robust democracy. Parliamentary privilege should shield democracy from those who could threaten it. 14 Dr. Jyoti Dharm, Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Member of Parliament Under Indian Constitution: An Overview, (Nov 2016).