"Supreme Court to Examine Legislative Privilege vs Free Speech"
Legislative privilege
special rights and immunities granted to a legislature and its members to protect independent functioning
Breach of privilege
an act that obstructs a House or its member in discharging legislative duties
India's Constitution grants legislatures special rights called legislative privileges to protect their independent functioning. Article 105 lays down these privileges for Parliament and its members, while Article 194 does the same for State Legislatures. Each article has three clauses. The second clause gives an almost absolute protection: no member is liable before any court for anything said or any vote given inside the House or its committees. The third clause is broader and less defined. It extends to the legislature 'other privileges' that are not spelt out anywhere in the constitutional text itself.
Originally, these undefined 'other privileges' were tied to whatever the British House of Commons enjoyed on the date the Constitution commenced. The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 changed this. It fixed the privileges at the position the House of Commons held just before the amendment, removing the earlier open-ended reference, though Parliament still has not enacted a specific law to fully codify these privileges even now. Because clause 3 remains vague, it has become the main site of conflict between legislative authority and individual fundamental rights, particularly freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). This tension surfaced sharply in two Supreme Court decisions, decades apart, that did not agree on how far privilege could go, which eventually led to the present reference before a seven-judge bench.
The case before the Supreme Court traces back to a Tamil Nadu Assembly episode, where newspaper reports and an editorial criticising state action against political opponents and the media were treated as contempt and breach of privilege. Journalists and an editor were sentenced to imprisonment, and arrest warrants were issued across multiple states. The Supreme Court stayed the warrants and referred the underlying constitutional question to a larger bench: can legislative privilege under Article 194(3) override the fundamental right to free speech and press freedom under Article 19(1)(a), and does ordering imprisonment for an alleged breach of privilege satisfy the fairness and due-process guarantees of Articles 14 and 21 (meaning: the rights to equality before law and to life and personal liberty).
The reference exists because of two conflicting precedents. …
With reference to the Indian polity, consider the following statements:
I.The Governor of a State is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his/her office.
II.No criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the Governor during his/her term of office.
III.Members of a State Legislature are not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said within the House.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
With reference to legislative privileges in India, consider the following statements: 1. Article 105 confers privileges on Parliament and its members, while Article 194 confers similar privileges on State Legislatures. 2. A member of a State Legislature cannot be proceeded against in any court for anything said in the House under Article 194(3). 3. The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 fixed the 'other privileges' of state legislatures at the position the House of Commons held as on a specified 1979 date, instead of an open-ended reference. How many of the above statements are correct?
Match List I (Case) with List II (Holding) and select the correct answer using the codes given below: List I:
A.Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha (1959)
B.Keshav Singh's case (1964)
C.Raja Ram Pal case (2007)
D.Amarinder Singh case (2010). List II:
1.Held that free speech under Article 19(1)(a) must yield to legislative privilege under Article 194(3)
2.Held that courts can examine the legality of detention ordered in privilege proceedings
3.Upheld expulsion of Members of Parliament while holding privilege is subject to judicial review
4.Quashed expulsion of a former Chief Minister, holding privilege cannot inflict disproportionate punishment
With reference to privileges of members of a State Legislature, which one of the following statements is correct?
Consider the following statements regarding the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, in relation to legislative privileges: 1. It removed the direct reference to the British House of Commons from the constitutional text on privileges. 2. It fixed the 'other privileges' of each House of Parliament at the position they held just before the amendment, until Parliament enacts a law defining them. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Supreme Court's pending reference on the interplay between legislative privilege and freedom of speech (Articles 194(3) and 19(1)(a)) is being heard by a Constitution Bench of how many judges?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account