Article 105 of the Costitution of India with Case law

Article 105 of the Constitution of India deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament and its members. It is essential to preserve the independence of the Parliament and to ensure that its functioning is not obstructed by external influences.

🔹 Text of Article 105 – Powers, Privileges, etc., of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof

Clause (1):
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament.

Clause (2):
No Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof. Also applies to publications under the authority of Parliament.

Clause (3):
In other respects, the powers, privileges, and immunities of each House and of the members and the committees shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom at the commencement of the Constitution.

Clause (4):
Provisions apply to persons who have the right to speak or otherwise take part in Parliament or committee proceedings, as if they were Members.

🔹 Key Features

Guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament (not outside).

Provides immunity from legal proceedings for anything said or voted in the House.

No legal action can be taken against authorized publication of parliamentary proceedings.

Privileges not yet codified fully—still largely derived from British parliamentary practice (House of Commons).

🔹 Important Case Laws on Article 105

Keshav Singh’s Case (Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, AIR 1965 SC 745)
🔹 Facts: A person (Keshav Singh) was held in contempt of the U.P. Legislative Assembly. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court by the President.
🔹 Held: The Supreme Court ruled that legislative privileges are subject to judicial review.
🔹 Significance: Reaffirmed that fundamental rights prevail over privileges if there is a conflict.

Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy (1970 AIR 1573)
🔹 Facts: Plaintiffs sued MPs for allegedly defamatory statements made in Parliament.
🔹 Held: The SC held that statements made in Parliament are absolutely privileged, and no court proceedings can be initiated.
🔹 Significance: Emphasized complete immunity under Article 105(2).

PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998) 4 SCC 626 (JMM Bribery Case)
🔹 Facts: Allegations of bribes to MPs for voting in favour of the government.
🔹 Held: Majority held that MPs are protected under Article 105(2) for votes/speeches, even if they received a bribe.
🔹 Dissent: This protection should not cover criminal acts.
🔹 Significance: Controversial interpretation — led to criticism that it enabled corruption immunity.

🔹 Summary

ClauseDescription
105(1)Freedom of speech in Parliament
105(2)Immunity for speeches/votes & publications
105(3)Parliamentary privileges undefined (follow UK Commons till codified)
105(4)Rights extend to persons allowed to participate in proceedings

Conclusion

Article 105 plays a critical role in protecting the independence of Parliament, ensuring that members can function without fear or favour. However, the lack of codification of privileges and controversial judicial interpretations (like in the Narasimha Rao case) have sparked calls for reform and clarification by legislation.

 

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments