Privileges of State Legislature Members in India: Balancing Authority and Accountability

Article 194 of the Indian Constitution grants privileges to members of state legislatures to ensure smooth legislative functioning and protect their dignity and independence. These privileges, originating from British parliamentary practices, secure legislators from obstruction and enable them to perform their duties effectively. However, there is ongoing debate about the extent and misuse of these privileges.

Overview of Privileges for Members of the State Legislature in India

• Privileges Granted Under Article 194: Article 194 of the Indian Constitution grants privileges to the members of the legislature of a state. 
  • Members of the State Legislature enjoy certain privileges to ensure the smooth functioning of the legislative process. 
  • These privileges are granted to protect the dignity and independence of the State Legislature and its members.
• Need: To secure the independence and effectiveness of their actions and to protect the members from any obstruction in the discharge of their legislative responsibilities.
• Extension of these privileges: To persons who are entitled to speak and take part in the proceedings of a House of the state legislature or any of its committees. 
  • Example: Advocate-General of the state and state ministers. 
• Do not cover: These privileges are not extended to the Governor who is also an integral part of the state legislature. 
• Types: The privileges of a state legislature can be classified into two broad categories – collective privileges, and individual privileges.

Privileges and Their Evolution

• Origin at British Parliament: Introduced to protect legislators in the House of Commons from arrest and harassment when they criticized the monarchy.
• Adoption in Indian context: India’s founding fathers provided absolute freedom of speech to parliamentarians within the house, even as citizens’ freedom remained restricted. 
  • This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.
• Power to Codify: The founding fathers vested the power to codify privileges with Parliament. However, current legislators resist codification fearing a loss of parliamentary sovereignty. 
  • This was highlighted in the P.V. Narsimha Rao Case.
• Current Scenario: Parliamentarians enjoy immunity from arrest during sessions and 40 days prior, essentially granting them immunity for over 365 days each year. 
  • Slapping of privileges on citizens, civil servants, and journalists is commonly observed.

Importance of Parliamentary Privileges

• Ensuring Functionality: Privileges such as freedom from arrest and freedom of speech primarily exist to ensure the House can perform its functions without hindrance.
• Protection of Members: The power to punish for contempt and to regulate its own Constitution exists for the protection of members and the vindication of the House’s authority and dignity.
• Preventing External Interference: Privileges are granted to enable legislators to carry out their duties without fear or favor and to prevent external interference.

Issues with Parliamentary Privileges

• Conflict with Constitutionalism: The power of legislators to be the sole judges of their privileges and breaches undermines constitutionalism.
• Misuse of Privileges: Instances of misuse, such as the 2017 case where two journalists were imprisoned on the order of the Karnataka assembly Speaker, raise concerns.
• Contradiction with the Rule of Law: The absolute freedom of speech granted to parliamentarians seemingly places them above citizens, a point of contention with our democratic principles.
• Threat to Equality: Granting special rights and immunities to parliamentarians is seen as undermining equality.
• Immunity from Court Review: The most controversial aspect is the power and jurisdiction of courts to review parliamentary privileges.
• Global Experience: Countries like Britain, the US, and Australia have either limited these privileges or codified them.

Balancing Free Speech and Parliamentary Privileges

• The Paradox: The privileges, essential for the independent functioning of Parliament, often come into conflict with free speech, resulting in a paradoxical situation.
• Judicial Stance: The Supreme Court initially gave primacy to privileges over free speech in M.S.M. Sharma (1958) but reconsidered this stance by 1967.

Way Forward

Codification: Codification of privileges would enhance accountability of legislatures and open them to judicial Scrutiny.

• Learning from Global Examples: The codification practiced by Australia, the USA, New Zealand, and Canada can serve as potential models for India.

Conclusion

Balancing the need for parliamentary privileges with the principles of constitutionalism and free speech is crucial. 

• Codifying these privileges, as practiced globally, could enhance accountability and align with democratic values, ensuring legislators can perform their duties while upholding the rule of law and equality.

DOWNLOAD PDF