Nia Mariya Sabu, BBA LLB (Hons), School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University)
ABSTRACT
On May 1, 2000, a full bench of the Supreme Court of India referred a case filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation to the Constitutional Bench, requesting a "declaration regarding the correctness" of the immunity provision for Members of Parliament under Article 105(2) of the Constitution, without interfering with the judgment in P V Narasimha Rao v State. The core of parliamentary democracy is open, honest, and courageous debate in the legislature. For a body like a parliament, freedom of speech is extremely vital since it allows members to express their opinions without fear of being punished for violations like defamation or innuendo. In its XII report, the Rajya Sabha stated that a parliament member cannot be questioned in any court or outside the house for whatever revelation he made since it would be an infringement on his right to free expression. Following that, the Lok Sabha ruled that any suit brought in court for what is stated on the floor of the house will be considered contempt of court or a breach of privilege. One of the central principles of the parliamentary form of governance is that people's representatives should be able to speak freely without fear of legal repercussions. What they say is only subject to the norms of Parliament's discipline, the members' good judgment, and the speaker's direction of the proceedings. The courts have no say in the case, and they shouldn't. But the question is should a lawmaker be granted certain immunities from prosecution?
Keywords: Constitution of India, Parliamentary Privileges, Separation of Powers
