Freedom of Speech in Parliament: Constitutional Limits and Parliamentary Privileges

The Lok Sabha Speaker emphasized that freedom of speech in Parliament is guaranteed, but it is subject to the Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament.

• Referring to Article 105 of the Constitution of India, he clarified that freedom of speech in Parliament operates within the framework of parliamentary procedures and standing orders.
• Addressing the House after the debate on the resolution seeking his removal, the Speaker noted that Members from various parties held over twelve hours of discussion across two days, presenting their views and concerns.

About Freedom of Speech in Parliament

• Freedom of Speech in Parliament is a parliamentary privilege that allows Members of Parliament (MPs) to speak freely during debates and discussions without fear of legal action.
• Constitutional Provision:
  • Article 121:  It prohibits discussion in Parliament on the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court of India and High Courts, except during impeachment proceedings, thereby balancing legislative freedom with judicial independence.
  • Article 105: It provides MPs immunity from civil or criminal proceedings for anything said or any vote given in Parliament. 
    • Article 194: A similar provision exists for State Legislatures under Article 194 of the Constitution of India.
• Key Features
  • Immunity from Legal Proceedings: MPs cannot be prosecuted in courts for anything said or any vote given in Parliament.
  • Freedom to Debate Public Issues: Members can criticise government policies, raise national issues, and participate in debates without external pressure.
  • Applies to Parliamentary Committees: Protection also extends to statements made during committee proceedings.

Supreme Court Judgments on Freedom of Speech of MPs

• Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy (1970): The Supreme Court of India upheld absolute immunity for Members of Parliament for statements made in Parliament under Article 105(2) of the Constitution of India. 
  • The Court emphasised that the term “anything” used in the Article has the widest scope, placing parliamentary speech beyond judicial scrutiny.
• P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998): The Court ruled that Members of Parliament enjoy immunity from prosecution for bribery if the alleged act is directly connected to a vote or speech in Parliament, as protected under Article 105(2).
• Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007): The Court held that parliamentary privileges are not absolute and remain subject to judicial review when constitutional provisions or fundamental rights are violated.
• Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): The Court clarified that statements made by a Minister cannot automatically be treated as the official position of the government, and the government cannot be held liable unless it formally endorses or adopts those remarks.

Parliamentary Rules Governing Speech

• Removal of Unparliamentary Remarks: Under Rule 380 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha, the Speaker has the authority to remove from the official record any words or expressions that are defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary or undignified.
• Restriction on Sub Judice Matters: Members are generally not allowed to discuss issues that are currently under consideration by a court of law, in order to prevent interference with the judicial process.
• Limits on Personal Allegations: Defamatory or incriminatory allegations against any individual cannot be made without prior notice to the Speaker, ensuring fairness and responsibility in parliamentary debates.
• Protection of High Constitutional Offices: Members are restricted from making adverse remarks about the conduct of persons holding high constitutional positions.
• Respect Among Members: Parliamentary rules discourage questioning the good faith or intentions of fellow Members, maintaining decorum and mutual respect in debates.

Challenges

• Misuse of Privilege: MPs may sometimes make unverified or politically motivated allegations during debates.
  • For Example: Instances where remarks made during parliamentary debates were later expunged by the Speaker under Rule 380 for being defamatory or unparliamentary.
• Frequent Disruptions: Protests, slogan-shouting, and approaching the Well of the House reduce meaningful debate.
  • For Example: Repeated disruptions in sessions of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have led to significant loss of working hours.
• Balancing Immunity and Accountability: Absolute protection under Article 105 of the Constitution of India may sometimes limit legal accountability for defamatory statements.
  • For Example: The ruling in Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy confirmed that courts cannot question statements made in Parliament.
• Declining Quality of Debate: Increasing political polarisation can shift focus from constructive discussion to partisan confrontation.
  • For Example: Several parliamentary debates in recent years have been adjourned due to heated exchanges between the treasury and opposition benches.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Way Forward

• Strengthening Parliamentary Ethics and Code of Conduct: Clear ethical standards should guide MPs’ speech in Parliament.
  • For Example: Strict enforcement of rules by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha can help maintain decorum.
• Encouraging Evidence-Based Debates: Members should rely on data, committee reports and research inputs while raising issues.
  • For Example: Parliamentary Standing Committee reports can be used as credible sources during debates.
• Capacity Building for MPs: Training programmes can improve the quality of legislative debate and policy discussions.
  • For Example: Orientation programmes conducted by the Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and Training for new Members of Parliament.

DOWNLOAD PDF