Answer:

Introduction:

The Indian Constitution, in Article 105, enshrines the powers, privileges, and immunities of the Parliament and its members. While the spirit of these privileges is to ensure the smooth functioning of the parliamentary system, the scope and extent of these privileges have been a matter of debate due to their partial codification.

Body:

Reasons for the Absence of Legal Codification of the ‘Parliamentary Privileges’:

• Historical Legacy: Derived from the British parliamentary system, these privileges were deemed suitable for a country like Indian without exhaustive codification, ensuring adaptability and relevance over time.
• Flexibility & Autonomy: An un-codified list maintains the flexibility and sovereignty of Parliament. It can adapt to unforeseen situations, and the autonomy of Parliament is preserved against potential judicial or executive interference.
• Diverse Sources: As highlighted in the Article, parliamentary privileges stem from varied sources, including the Constitution, laws made by Parliament, house rules, conventions, and judicial interpretations, making codification a complex task.
• Misconceptions and Misinterpretations: As the Vice President pointed out, certain privileges, such as immunity from arrest in civil cases, are misunderstood by members, causing misconceptions about the broader scope of privileges.

Illustrations of the Ambiguities and Conflicts:

• Arrests & Investigations: Some MPs believe they are immune from actions by investigating agencies during parliamentary sessions, as seen in recent protests against central agencies like ED, CBI, and the IT department. However, MPs, while protected in civil matters for a specified period, don’t enjoy immunity in criminal cases.
• Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith and Others (2021) emphasized that privileges aren’t gateways to exemptions from the general law, especially criminal law.

Addressing the Problem:

• Comprehensive Codification: A holistic review involving parliamentarians, legal experts, and stakeholders should be conducted to achieve a well-defined codification of privileges, ensuring they align with democratic principles.
• Judicial Oversight: A clear mechanism should be in place for judicial scrutiny when parliamentary privileges appear to conflict with fundamental rights or other legal provisions.
• Education and Awareness: MPs should be made more aware of the scope and limits of their privileges, ensuring they understand and respect the boundaries.
• Balancing Privileges with Rights: While codifying, it is crucial to balance parliamentary privileges with fundamental rights, ensuring that the spirit of democracy remains intact.
• Periodic Review: Once codified, the privileges should undergo periodic review to adapt to changing democratic needs and societal values.

Conclusion:

Parliamentary privileges are essential to safeguard the dignity and effective functioning of Parliament. However, their partial codification has led to ambiguities and potential overreaches. By addressing this through comprehensive codification and striking a balance with fundamental rights, the sanctity of the democratic process can be upheld, ensuring that Parliament remains a beacon of democracy and not a place of unchecked power.