Explain the conβlict between Fundamental Rights and parliamentary privileges, with relevant case laws.
UPSC Mains Syllabus topic:
Parliament and State legislatures—structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges and issues arising out of these.
Why was this question asked?
The ‘Powers, Privileges and immunities of Parliament and its members’ as envisaged in Article 105 of the Constitution leave room for a large number of un-codified and un-enumerated privileges to continue. Asses the reasons for the absence of legal codification of the ‘Parliamentaryprivileges. How can this problem be addressed? (2014)
Introduction: The conflict between Fundamental Rights and parliamentary privileges has been a subject of debate and judicial interpretation in India. While Fundamental Rights guarantee certain freedoms and protections to citizens, parliamentary privileges provide special powers and immunities to members of the legislature.
Body
I. Gunupati Case:
- The Gunupati case involved derogatory remarks published by the Blitz newspaper about the Speaker of the U.P. Legislative Assembly.
- The Assembly issued an arrest warrant against the editor, leading to his arrest.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Fundamental Right of the editor under Article 22(2) had been violated as he was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
- This decision created the impression that Fundamental Rights would control parliamentary privileges.
II. Searchlight Case:
- In the Searchlight case, the Supreme Court held that parliamentary privileges under Article 105(3) were not subject to the Fundamental Right of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a).
- The Court stated that a House of Parliament could prohibit the publication of its debates or proceedings, even if it contradicted the freedom of speech and expression of the publisher.
- The ruling in Gunupati was considered not binding as it was not a “considered opinion.”
III. Keshav Singh Case:
- The Keshav Singh case clarified that only Article 19(1)(a) was excluded from controlling legislative privileges, and other Fundamental Rights could apply.
- The Court held that Article 21, which guarantees the right to personal liberty, would apply to parliamentary privileges.
- An order of the House punishing a person for contempt would not be final and conclusive, and the Court could intervene if there were capricious or mala fide reasons for deprivation of personal liberty.
Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Legislative Privileges:
- Harmonious construction: The Court emphasized the need for harmonious construction of Article 105(3) (or Article 194(3)) and Article 19(1)(a), giving due regard to the special nature of privileges.
- Special nature of privileges: Legislative privileges, being of a special nature, should prevail over general Fundamental Rights.
- Limited applicability of Art. 19(1)(a): The Searchlight case excluded only Article 19(1)(a) from controlling legislative privileges, leaving other Fundamental Rights potentially applicable.
- Art. 21 and personal liberty: The Court clarified that Article 21 would apply to parliamentary privileges, allowing individuals to seek relief on the ground of deprivation of personal liberty not in accordance with law.
IV. Legislative Framework and Fundamental Rights:
- It is essential for the legislature to enact laws defining its privileges while ensuring compatibility with Fundamental Rights.
- If Parliament or a State Legislature defines its privileges under Article 105(3) or Article 194(3), such a law would be subject to Article 19(1)(a).
- Any provision of the law that contravenes Fundamental Rights would be invalid under Article 13(2).
Conclusion: It is essential for the legislature to enact laws defining its privileges while ensuring compatibility with Fundamental Rights. This delicate equilibrium helps maintain the democratic fabric of the country while upholding the principles of justice and equality.
For more content