Introduction
A functioning Parliament depends not only on elected representatives but also on the freedom with which they speak, debate, and question authority. Article 105 of the Indian Constitution protects this freedom by granting parliamentary privileges to Members of Parliament. These privileges ensure that MPs can perform their legislative duties without fear, pressure, or external interference.
In a democracy as diverse and argumentative as India, debates inside Parliament often involve sharp criticism, strong opinions, and uncomfortable truths. Therefore, the Constitution shields legislators from legal consequences for what they say or how they vote within the House. At the same time, Article 105 does not promote misuse. Instead, it balances freedom with responsibility.
Understanding Article 105 is essential for law students, competitive exam aspirants, journalists, and citizens who wish to know how Parliament functions independently. This article explains the meaning, scope, limits, and relevance of parliamentary privileges in simple language, supported by case laws and practical examples.
Meaning and Scope of Article 105
Article 105 deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Members of Parliament and, in certain cases, of the Houses themselves. It applies to both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The provision exists to protect the dignity and authority of Parliament as an institution.
Article 105 grants freedom of speech to MPs within Parliament. This freedom goes beyond the general right under Article 19. As a result, MPs can speak openly during debates without fear of court action. Additionally, MPs enjoy immunity from legal proceedings for anything they say or any vote they cast in Parliament.
The Article also extends protection to persons who publish parliamentary proceedings under lawful authority. Therefore, official reports and publications receive constitutional backing.
Freedom of Speech in Parliament
Nature of Parliamentary Free Speech
Article 105(1) guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament. This freedom allows MPs to express opinions, criticize policies, and hold the executive accountable. Unlike ordinary citizens, MPs do not face defamation suits or criminal liability for statements made inside the House.
However, this freedom operates only within Parliament and its committees. Outside Parliament, MPs enjoy no special protection. Therefore, speeches made at rallies or press conferences do not fall under Article 105.
Limits on Parliamentary Speech
Although Article 105 provides wide protection, it does not permit disorderly conduct. Parliamentary rules, conventions, and the authority of the Speaker or Chairman regulate debates. Members must respect decorum, dignity, and discipline. As a result, privileges do not mean absolute freedom.
Immunity from Legal Proceedings
Protection for Speeches and Votes
Article 105(2) provides immunity from court proceedings for anything said or any vote given in Parliament. This immunity ensures independent decision-making. MPs can vote against powerful interests without fear of retaliation.
The protection applies even if the statement appears offensive or incorrect. Courts cannot question the truth or propriety of parliamentary speech. This separation preserves legislative independence.
Protection for Parliamentary Publications
The Constitution also protects authorized publications of parliamentary proceedings. This provision encourages transparency and public access to legislative debates. However, unauthorized or distorted reports may not enjoy the same protection.
Privileges of Parliament as an Institution
Apart from individual MPs, Parliament itself enjoys collective privileges. These privileges include the power to punish for contempt, regulate internal proceedings, and maintain discipline. Parliament uses these powers to protect its authority and ensure smooth functioning.
Unlike some countries, India has not codified all parliamentary privileges in detail. Instead, Article 105(3) originally linked privileges to those of the British House of Commons. Later constitutional amendments froze these privileges as they existed before 1978, until Parliament defines them by law.
Important Case Laws on Article 105
Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha
This case, also known as the Searchlight case, addressed the conflict between parliamentary privileges and freedom of the press. The Supreme Court held that parliamentary privileges prevail when they clash with fundamental rights. This judgment emphasized the constitutional importance of legislative autonomy.
Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha
In this landmark case related to the cash-for-questions scam, the Supreme Court clarified that parliamentary privileges are subject to judicial review. While Parliament can discipline its members, courts can intervene if actions violate constitutional principles. This ruling ensured accountability alongside privilege.
Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy
The Court held that MPs enjoy absolute immunity for statements made inside Parliament, even if the statements appear defamatory. This case reinforced the wide scope of Article 105(2).
Relevance of Article 105 in Practice
Article 105 strengthens democracy by enabling fearless debate. MPs can question corruption, policy failures, and executive excesses without hesitation. As a result, Parliament becomes a forum for public accountability.
At the same time, misuse of privileges can damage public trust. Therefore, judicial scrutiny and internal parliamentary controls play a crucial role. Citizens benefit when privileges serve public interest rather than personal protection.
Relationship Between Article 105 and Fundamental Rights
Parliamentary privileges sometimes conflict with fundamental rights, especially freedom of speech and personal liberty. In such cases, courts attempt to balance both. Although privileges often prevail, they do not operate in a constitutional vacuum. Judicial interpretation ensures harmony between democratic institutions.
FAQs on Article 105
What are parliamentary privileges under Article 105?
Parliamentary privileges include freedom of speech in Parliament, immunity from legal proceedings for speeches and votes, and certain institutional powers of Parliament.
Does Article 105 protect MPs outside Parliament?
No, Article 105 applies only to speeches, votes, and actions within Parliament or its committees.
Can courts review parliamentary privilege cases?
Yes, courts can review cases involving parliamentary privileges if constitutional violations arise.
Are parliamentary privileges absolute?
Privileges are wide but not absolute. Parliamentary rules, constitutional principles, and judicial review impose limits.
Does Article 105 apply to state legislatures?
No, Article 105 applies to Parliament. State legislatures fall under Article 194.
Conclusion
Article 105 of the Indian Constitution safeguards the independence, dignity, and effectiveness of Parliament. By protecting free speech and legislative action, it ensures that elected representatives can serve the people without fear. At the same time, constitutional checks prevent abuse of these privileges.
In a healthy democracy, privilege exists to serve public interest, not personal immunity. Understanding Article 105 helps citizens appreciate how the Constitution balances authority with accountability. If you require deeper legal insight into constitutional privileges or parliamentary practice, expert legal guidance can offer clarity and confidence.
