Answer.
APPROACH AND STRUCTURE
Introduction:
-
- Brief about parliamentary privileges as provided under Article 105 of the Indian Constitution.
- Highlight the issue of these privileges being largely uncodified.
BODY
-
- Reasons for the Absence of Legal Codification.
- Ways to Address the Problem.
- A historical example of misuse of parliamentary privileges.
Conclusion:
-
- Summarize the necessity for reforming the current uncodified system.
INTRODUCTION:
The features of parliamentary privileges are borrowed from the ‘British Constitution.’ Article 105 of the Indian Constitution provides essential rights that enable Parliament to function effectively. While these privileges are crucial for effective functioning, their lack of codification has led to ambiguities and potential misuse, which have advantages and disadvantages.
BODY:
Reasons for the absence of legal codification of the ‘parliamentary privileges’:
-
- Historical Precedent: Many of these privileges have their roots in the British parliamentary system and its concept of parliamentary sovereignty. They were intended to protect the Parliament’s autonomy and its members from the monarch’s influence.
- Sovereignty of Parliament: Parliamentary privilege is closely linked to parliament’s sovereignty. The absence of codification is seen as preserving the parliament’s independence from the judiciary. If these privileges were legally codified, they could be subject to judicial review, potentially undermining the parliament’s autonomy.
- Practical Difficulties: Codifying parliamentary privileges can be complex due to their broad and diverse nature. They cover various issues, from freedom of speech and debate to immunity from legal proceedings. Attempting to define these privileges legally could lead to oversimplification or misinterpretation.
- Curbing Dissent: Recently, the speaker of the Lok Sabha released a list of unparliamentary words, which is still a matter of However, any restrictions on speech can deter members from expressing their opinions.
- Unethical Suspension: Privileges are drained in favor of the majority government as majority politics often leads to the suspension of members on account of unruly behavior. It also helps the party in power to steadfast bills without suspended members.
A historical example of misuse or controversial use of uncodified parliamentary privileges
The JMM bribery case (1993-1998): Members of Parliament were accused of accepting bribes to vote against a no-confidence motion. The Supreme Court’s 1998 ruling initially granted immunity from prosecution to MPs who had accepted bribes if they voted as agreed, based on parliamentary privilege. In Sita Soren case (2024), The Supreme Court overturned its previous 1998 judgment in the JMM bribery case, ruling that parliamentary privileges do not grant immunity to MPs or MLAs on bribery charges. This decision addressed the long-standing controversy over the extent of parliamentary privilege in criminal matters.
WAY FORWARD:
-
- Set up a Parliamentary Privileges Commission: A permanent commission on parliamentary privileges could regularly review and recommend changes to existing privileges based on evolving democratic norms.
- Refer to the Judiciary for Interpretation: The balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary is a hallmark of a democratic By involving the judiciary, the potential for arbitrary privilege interpretations can be reduced.
- Constitutional Amendment to Clarify Privileges: R. Ambedkar initially opposed the codification of privileges during the framing of the Constitution, emphasizing flexibility. However, scholars like H. M. Seervai later argued that as India’s democracy matures, greater clarity and codification are necessary to prevent misuse.
- Training and Sensitization of MPs on Privileges: Ignorance of the law or parliamentary procedures often leads to disputes and controversies. Training can prevent such incidents.
- Codification of Privileges to Public Interest: Privileges should enhance the public interest, not as personal safeguards for MPs. Codification should focus on essential privileges, ensuring MPs are protected in performing their duties but not given a blanket shield from legal accountability for personal actions.
- Distinguish Between Collective and Individual Privileges: Legal codification should clearly distinguish between privileges that belong to Parliament as a collective body and those that belong to individual MPs, with more stringent limits on the latter.
- International Best Practices: India can learn from other democracies that have successfully codified parliamentary privileges. Australia can serve as a model that has established explicit legislative privileges.
CONCLUSION:
Addressing this issue may involve enacting legislation, developing a code of conduct, strengthening parliamentary committees, involving the judiciary for interpretation, promoting cross-party dialogue, and raising public awareness. The current uncodified system needs reforms that uphold democratic values and safeguard the rights of MPs.
Spread the Word