ARTICLE 105

1. Context

2. About Article 105 

• Simply put, Members of Parliament are exempted from any legal action for any statement made or act done in the course of their duties.
• For example, a defamation suit cannot be filed for a statement made in the House.
• This immunity extends to certain non-members as well, such as the Attorney General for India or a Minister who may not be a member but speaks in the House.
• In cases where a Member oversteps or exceeds the contours of admissible free speech, the Speaker or the House itself will deal with it, as opposed to the Court.

3. Restrictions on this privilege

4. The origin of the Privilege of Parliament

• The Government of India Act, of 1935 first brought this provision to India, with references to the powers and privileges enjoyed by the House of Commons in Britain.
• An initial draft of the Constitution too contained a reference to the House of Commons, but it was subsequently dropped.
• However, unlike India where the Constitution is paramount, Britain follows Parliamentary supremacy.
• The privileges of the House of Commons are based on Common law, developed over centuries through precedents.

4.1. R vs Elliot, Holles and Valentine

• In the 17th Century case "R vs Elliot, Holles and Valentine", Sir John Elliot, a member of the House of Commons was arrested for seditious words spoken in a debate and for violence against the speaker.
• However, the House of Lords provided immunity to Sir John, saying that words spoken in Parliament Should only be judged therein.
• This privilege has also been enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1689, by which the Parliament of England definitively established the principle of a constitutional monarchy.

4.2. Bradlaugh v. Gosset

5. Indian courts rulings

5.1. Tej Kiran Jain v N Sanjiva Reddy

• In the 1970 ruling in "Tej Kiran Jain v N Sanjiva Reddy", the Supreme Court dismissed a plea for damages filed by the followers of the Puri Shankaracharya against parliamentarians.
• The judgement recalled that in March 1969, a World Hindu Religious Conference was held at Patna.
• The Shankaracharya took part in it and is reported to have observed that untouchability was in harmony with the tenets of Hinduism and that no law could stand in its way and to have walked out when the National Anthem was played.
• The petitioners claimed that when the issue was debated in Parliament, uncharitable remarks were made against the seer.
• The petitioners argued that the MP's immunity was against an alleged irregularity of procedure but not against illegality.
• However, the SC ruled that "the word "anything" in Article 105 is of the widest import and is equivalent to 'everything' ".

5.2. P V Narasimha Rao vs. The state's

• Almost two decades later, in 1998, the SC in the case of P V Narasimha Rao vs. The state's answered two questions on parliamentary privilege, broadly relating to questions of corruption.
• In 1993, Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister of a minority government at the Centre.
• When a vote of no-confidence was called by members of the opposition against the government, some factions of the ruling party paid Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) members to vote against the motion.
• The motion was defeated in the House, with 251 members supporting it and 265 members against it.

• A five-judge Bench of the apex court ruled that the ordinary law would not apply to the acceptance of a bribe by an MP in case of parliamentary proceedings.
• Broadly interpreted, as we think it should be, Article 105 (2) protects a Member of Parliament against proceedings in court that related to or concern, or have a connection or nexus with anything said, or a vote given, by him in Parliament.
• The court said, giving a wider ambit to the protection accorded under Article 105 (2).
• The Court rationalised this by saying it will "enable members to participate fearlessly in Parliamentary debates" and that these members need wider protection of immunity against all civil and criminal proceedings that bear a nexus to their speech or vote.

For Prelims & Mains