Author: Akshara Dadhich, Student at Biyani Law College, Affiliated under Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur
ABSTRACT
When a Member of Parliament uses hate-filled slurs like ‘Mullah’ and ‘Terrorist’ on the house floor, but walks away with nothing more than a warning, or when another links the Prime Minister’s surname to fugitives such as Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi without facing any formal censure, it raises a pressing question: does this reflect the strength of free speech in Parliament or the failure to uphold the very principles of legislative privilege?
Legislative privileges refer to the special rights, immunities, and exemptions enjoyed by the Members of Parliament and State Legislatures, enabling them to discharge their duties effectively without fear of external interference. These privileges- enriched in Article 105 and 194 of the Constitution- cover both individual members and the collective House, immunity from legal proceedings and for statements made therein, and the power to regulate its own proceedings. They are often viewed as a Shield– a constitutional safeguard designed to protect the independence and dignity of legislative bodies. They empower legislators to speak freely, act independently, and resist undue external interference, especially from executive and the judiciary.
But what happens when that shield collides with the fundamental rights of citizen- particularly with the right to equality, dignity, or even freedom of expression? Can privilege be stretched so far that it begins to resemble immunity? Can it override the constitutional liberties of individuals outside of legislature?
