‘Privilege’ means a special or exceptional
right or immunity enjoyed by a particular class of persons or individuals which
is not available to rest of the people. In its legal sense it means an
exemption from some duty, burden, attendance or liability to which others are
subject. In Parliamentary parlance the term privilege means certain rights and
immunities enjoyed by the each house of Parliament and its committees collectively,
and by the members of each House individually without which they cannot
discharge their functions effectively and efficiently.
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the
peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of
Parliament and by members of each House individually, without which they could
not discharge their functions, efficiently and effectively, and which exceed
those possessed by other bodies or individuals. When any of these rights and
immunities, both of the members, individually, and of the assembly in its
collective capacity which are known by the general name of privileges, are
disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a
breach of privilege, and is punishable under the law of Parliament.
The object of parliamentary privilege is to
safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of the institution of
Parliament and its members. They are guaranteed by the Constitution to enable
them to discharge their functions without any let or hindrances. Privileges of
the Parliament do not place a member of the Parliament on a footing different
from that of an ordinary citizen in the matter of application of laws of land
unless they are good or sufficient reasons in the interest of the Parliament
itself to do so. The privileges are available to members only when they are
functioning in their capacity as members of Parliament and performing their
parliamentary duties[1].
ORIGIN OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN INDIA:
The history of Parliamentary Privileges in India dates back to the
advent of Britishers. With the disintegration of the Mughals, the English
gradually took over the reins of Indian empire in their own hands. This
transfer of power to an alien power had its own peculiar impact on the societal
and political structure of India. The English introduced their own system of
administration as well as their own forms of government. The Britishers not
only left behind the parliamentary system of government but also the idea of
parliamentary privileges, the thought behind was to ensure the legislature and
its members to maintain their dignity and discharge their duties effectively.
The English
introduced the system of Parliamentary Privileges in contemporary India. The
Britishers passed the East India Company Act, 1773 better known as the
Regulating Act of 1773 which created the office of Governor-General of
Presidency of Fort William. This Act also provided for a council assisted by
four members. The parliamentary privileges of freedom from arrest first made
appearance on the Indian scenario through this Act. Another major landmark step
in this regard was taken when the Pitt’s India Act, 1784 was passed. This Act
lay down that no discussion of a matter be adjourned for more than two days or
more than twice. Although in an embryonic form, it laid down the parliamentary
privilege of freedom of speech and expression.
PRIVILEGES AS LAID UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Articles 105[2]/194[3]
of the Constitution deal with the powers, privileges and immunities of Members
of Parliament/State Legislatures and their House, Members and Committees. Each
House also claims the right to punish actions which, while not breaches of any
specific privilege, are offences against its authority or dignity, such as
disobedience to its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its officers or
its members. Such actions, though called "breaches of privilege" are
more properly distinguished as "contempt’s".
Article
105 of the Constitution of India which provides for the powers, privileges and
immunities of the Houses of Parliament and of the Members and the Committee
thereof reads as follows:-
(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.
(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, and no person shall
be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either
House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
(3) In other respects, the powers,
privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament and of the members and
the Committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined
by Parliament by law, and until so defined, shall be those of that House and of
its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section
15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
(4) The provisions of clauses (1),
(2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this
Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the
proceedings of a House of Parliament or any committee thereof as they apply in
relation to Members of Parliament.
The corresponding provisions
relating to the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of State
Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof are contained in Article
194 of the Constitution which has identical terms to those in Article 105
relating to Parliament.
Clause 2 of Article 105 expressly declares that “no person shall be
liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either house
of parliament of any report, papers, votes, or proceedings”.[4] Clause 2 of the Article
105 provides immunity in respect to such publication as was done by or under
the authority of the house. Therefore
this protection authority did not extend to publication made by private person
without the authority of the house.
It has been said that it would of paramount public and national
importance that parliamentary proceedings should be communicated to the public,
which has deeper interest in knowing that has been passed in the
parliament. With this object the
parliament has enacted a law on parliamentary proceedings act 1956. The act
provides that no one will be liable for any proceeding, civil or criminal in
any court in respect of publication of true report of what is being discussed
in the parliament, and unless it is proved that the publication has been made
with malice. This particular provision authorizes somebody to publish its
reports of proceeding. So if a member makes a defamatory statement in
parliament be published outside the parliament was discussed in Stockdale v. Hansard.[5] In this case, the house of
common in a way authorized the reports of inspectors of the prison under the
order of the House of Commons to publish the report but it contained defamatory
statement. Hansard was affected by this publication and filed a suit against
Stockdale for damages for defamation. House of common pleaded two things before
the court;
- He published with the order of the house of common, the highest court;
- That it was the privileges and house common were the sole judge about the existence of such privileges.
Court of kings Bench rejected both the pleadings and held that it
was for the court to decide whether there is existence of privileges and also
said that there was no such privilege enjoyed by house of common that is house
of common has no privilege to publish defamatory statement outside the
parliament. After the court has decided existence of privilege, then it’s the
duty of house to decide whether there is breach of privilege or not. After
that, the parliament enacted parliamentary act, 1840 immunising the publication
of any reports of the proceedings outside the parliament on showing of the
certificate.
In India Parliamentary Proceeding Act, 1956 was enacted and gave
qualified privileges to publish the reports of the proceedings outside the
parliament. Qualified privileges has been always defence unless it is shown
that the publication is vitiated by malice. Article 361[6] (a) also provides
protection of publications of proceedings of parliament and state legislature.[7] No person shall be liable
under this provision if he happens to publish the true happening of the
parliament. However one of the exceptions to this rule is that no proceeding of
secret sitting of parliament can be published.
In MSM Sharma’s case[8]where
there was breach of privilege and contempt of the House to publish expunged
proceedings of the House and this question came up for consideration before the
Supreme Court wherein the Court ruled that a report of the whole speech
including by expunged portion though factually correct, may the law be regarded
as perverted and unfaithful and the publication of such a report may, prima
facie, be regarded as constituting a breach of privilege of the House.
Prior to Constitution (Forty –
fourth Amendment Act)[9],
clause (3) of Article 105 provided that "in other respects, the powers,
privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and
the committees of each House, shall be such as from time to time be defined by
Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of the House of
Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and
committees, at the commencement of the Constitution i.e. on the 26th January,
1950".
No law has so far been enacted by Parliament
(and State Legislatures) in pursuance of clause (3) of Articles 105/194 of the
Constitution to define the powers, privileges and immunities of each House and
of the Members and the committees thereof. In the absence of any such law,
therefore, the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of Parliament
and State Legislatures and of the Members and the committees thereof continue
in actual practice to be governed by the precedents of the British House of
Commons as they existed on the date our Constitution came into force.
It may be observed that Article
105(3)[10]
stipulates that Parliament may from time to time define its privileges by law
and it has been urged particularly by the Press that there should be codification
of the law of privilege so as to make the position clear and free from
ambiguity. The question of undertaking legislation on the subject has also
engaged the attention of the Presiding Officers of Parliament and State
Legislatures in India since 1921. The dominant view, however, has all along
been that any codification is more likely to harm the prestige and sovereignty
of Parliament/State Legislatures without any benefit being conferred on the
Press and that in the present circumstances, codification of Parliamentary
privileges is neither necessary nor desirable.
Some of the more important privileges of each
House of Parliament and of its members and Committees are as follows: -
(i) Freedom of speech
in Parliament[11].
(ii) Immunity to a member from any
proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him
in Parliament or any Committees thereof[12].
(iii) Immunity to a person from
proceedings in any court in respect of the publication by or under the
authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or
Proceedings[13].
(iv) Prohibition on the courts to
inquire into proceedings of Parliament[14].
(v) Freedom from arrest of Members
in civil cases during the continuance of the session of the House and forty
days before its commencement and forty days after its conclusion[15].
(vi) Right of the House to receive
immediate information of the arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment arid
release of Member[16].
(vii) Prohibition of arrest and
service of legal process within the precincts of the House without obtaining
the permission of the Chairman/Speaker.
(viii) Prohibition of disclosure
of the proceeding or decision's of a secret sitting of the House.
(ix) Members or Officers of the
House cannot give evidence or produce documents in courts of law, relating to
the proceedings of the House without the permission of the House[17].
(x) Members or Officers of the
House cannot attend as a witness before the other House or a Committee thereof
or before a House of State Legislature or a Committee thereof without the
permission of the House and they cannot be compelled to do so without their
consent[18].
(xi) All Parliamentary Committees
are empowered to send for persons, papers and records relevant for the purposes
of the inquiry by a Committee. A witness may be summoned by a Parliamentary
Committee who may be required to produce such documents as are required for the
use of a Committee.
(xii) The evidence tendered before
a Parliamentary Committee and its report and proceedings cannot be disclosed or
published by anyone until these have been laid on the Table of the House.
In addition to the above-mentioned privileges
and immunities, each House also enjoys certain consequential powers necessary for the
protection of its privileges and immunities. These powers are as follows: -
(i) to commit persons,
whether they are Member or not, for breach of privilege or contempt of the
House[19];
(ii) to compel the attendance of
witnesses and to send for papers and records[20];
(iii) to regulate its own procedure
and the conduct of its business; (of Article 118 of the Constitution)[21].
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPT OF
PARLIAMENT
When any individual or authority disregards
or attacks any of the privileges, rights and immunities, either of the Members
individually or of the House in its collective capacity, the offence is called
a breach of privilege and is punishable by the House. Besides, actions in the
nature of offences against the authority or dignity of the House, such as
disobedience to its legitimate orders or libels upon itself, its Members,
Committees or Officers also constitute breach of privilege.
Contempt of the House may be defined
generally as "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House
of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or
impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or
which has a tendency directly or indirectly, to produce such results." It
may be stated that it is not possible to enumerate exhaustively every act which
might be construed by the House as a contempt of the House. Some of the
important types of contempt of Parliament are, however, mentioned below[22]:-
(i) Speeches or
writings reflecting on the House, its Committees or Members;
(ii) Reflections on the character
and impartiality of the Chairman/Speaker in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) Publication of false or
distorted report of the Proceedings of the House;
(iv) Publication oil expunged
proceedings of the House;
(v) Publication of proceedings of
secret Sessions of the House;
(vi) Pre-mature publication of
proceedings, evidence or report of a Parliamentary Committee;
(vii) Reflections on the report of a Parliamentary
Committee;
(viii) Molestation of Members on
account of their conduct in the House or obstructing Members while in the
performance of their duties as Members or while on their way to or coming
after, attending the House or a Committee thereof;
(ix) Offering bribes to Members to influence them
in their Parliamentary conduct;
(x) Intimidation of Members in connection with
their Parliamentary conduct;
(xi) Any misconduct or undignified behaviour on the
part of a Member, such as, corruption in the execution of his office as Member,
disorderly and undignified conduct contrary to the usage or inconsistent with
accepted standards of Parliamentary conduct;
(xii) Obstructing or molesting officers of the House
in the discharge of their duties;
(xiii) Giving false or misleading evidence or
information deliberately to the House or a Committee thereof, by a Member or a
witness.
(xiv) Obstructing or molesting any witness during
his evidence before a Committee of the House.
POWER OF
PARLIAMENT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT
Each
House of Parliament is the guardian of its own privileges. Courts of law in
India have recognized that a House of Parliament (or of a State Legislature) is
the sole authority to judge as to whether or not there has been a breach of
privilege or contempt of the House in a particular case[23].
The House may punish a person found guilty of breach of privilege of contempt
of the House either by reprimand or admonition or by imprisonment for a
specified period. In case of its own Members, two other punishments can be
awarded by the House, namely, suspension from the service of the House or
expulsion.
The penal Jurisdiction of the
House is not confined to its own Members nor to offences committed in its
immediate presence, but extends to all contempt’s of the House, whether
committed by members or any persons who are not Members, irrespective of
whether the offence is committed within the House or beyond its walls. The
power to punish members, irrespective of whether the
offence is committed within the House or beyond its walls. The power to punish
is the most potent weapon in the hands of a House of legislature which gives
reality to privileges of Parliament, emphasizes its sovereign character and
vindicates its own authority and dignity. Therefore, it has aptly been
described as the key-stone of Parliamentary privilege[24].
It is also a tradition of the House that unqualified and
unconditional regrets sincerely expressed by the persons guilty of breach of
privilege and contempt of the House are accepted by the House and the House
normally decides in such cases to best check its own dignity by taking no
further notice of the matter.
FREEDOM OF
SPEECH
The most important privilege of Members of Parliament is freedom of
speech in Parliament. This privilege is embodied in clauses (1) and (2) of
Article 105 of the Constitution. This privilege is based on the Bill of Rights,
1989 of the United Kingdom whereby it was declared[25]:
"That the freedom of
speech, and debate or proceedings in Parliament, Ought not to be impeached or
questioned in any wart or place out of Parliament."
Thus no action can be taken against a
Member of Parliament in any Court or before any authority other than Parliament
in respect of anything said or any Vote given by him in Parliament or any
Committee thereof. It is also a breach of privilege to molest a Member or to take
any action against him or to threaten action against him on account of anything
said by him in Parliament Committee thereof it would be breach of privilege to
institute any legal proceedings against a Member in respect of anything said by
him in Parliament. A Member cannot also be questioned in any court or by any
agency outside Parliament for any disclosures he may make in Parliament.
The Press is often called an extension of Parliament. It conveys to
the people the substance of Parliamentary legislation and discussion and keeps
the people informed of what is happening in Parliament.
Though what appears in the Press may influence the Members and
provide them with necessary background, the material itself does not form an
authentic record of facts and exclusive reliance cannot be placed by a Member
of Parliament on the matter as reported. Thus, it has been ruled by successive
Presiding Officers that questions, motions and other notices which are merely
based on Press reports may not be admitted. The Member may be required to
produce some other primary evidence on which his notice is based[26].
Freedom of the Press has not been expressly provided for in the
Constitution, but is implicit in the fundamental right of the "freedom of
speech and expression" guaranteed to the citizens under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution. It has been settled by judicial decisions that freedom of
speech and expression includes freedom of the Press.
It is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House to publish
expunged proceedings of the House. This question came up for consideration
before the Supreme Court in the Searchlight case wherein the Court ruled that a
report of the whole speech including by expunged portion though factually
correct, may the law be regarded as perverted and unfaithful and the
publication of such a report may, prima
facie, be regarded as constituting a breach of privilege of the House[27].
Absolute immunity from proceedings in any court of law has been
conferred under the Constitution on all personnel’s connected with the
publication of proceedings of either House of Parliament, if such publication
is made by or under the authority of the House[28]. This immunity does not, however,
extend to the publication of reports of Parliamentary proceedings in
newspapers, whether published by a Member of the House or by any other person,
unless such publication is expressly authorized by either House. However,
constitutional protection has been given to the publication in newspapers or
broadcasts by wireless telegraphy of substantially true reports of any
proceedings of either House of Parliament, provided the reports are for the
public good and are not actuated by malice.
"361A. (1) No persons
shall be liable to any proceedings civil or criminal, in any court in respect
of the publication in a newspaper of a substantially true report of any
proceedings of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, or, as
the case may be, either House of the Legislature of a State, unless the
publication is proved to have been made with malice
Provided that nothing in this clause
shall apply to the publication of any report of the proceedings of a secret
sitting of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, or, as the
case may be, either House of the Legislature of a State.
(2) Clause (1) shall apply in relation
to reports or matters broadcast by means of wireless telegraphy as part of any
programme or service provided by means of a broadcasting station as it applies
in relation to reports or matters published in a newspaper.
Explanation in this Article
'newspaper' includes a news agency report containing material for publication
in a newspaper."
The above protection has been accorded
within the overall limitation that the House has the power to control and, if
necessary, to prohibit the publication of its debates or proceedings and to
punish for the violation of its orders. Normally, no restrictions are imposed
on reporting the proceedings of the House. But when debates or proceedings of
the House or its Committees are reported mala
fide or there is willful misrepresentation or suppression of speeches of
particular Members, it is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House and
the offender is liable to punishment. Further, the press is forbidden to
publish any part of the proceedings or evidence given before, or any document
presented to Parliamentary Committee before such proceedings or evidence or
document has been reported to the House. The Committee of Privileges in its
29th Report inter-alia
considered a question of breach of privilege arising out of the premature
publication of the proceedings of the Committee before they were reported to
the House by some newspapers. The Committee observed that the proceedings of a
Parliamentary Committee are confidential and should not be disclosed or given
any publicity unless the same is presented to the House or is other-wise
treated as not confidential and therefore constitutes a breach of privilege and
contempt of the House. Taking a note of the apology tendered by the concerned
newspapers the Committee recommended no further action but warned all concerned
that any premature publication or disclosure of the proceedings of the
Committee will be dealt with seriously in such occasions arise in future It is
also incumbent on the press not to disclose the proceedings or decisions of a
secret sitting of the House, until the ban on secrecy is lifted by the House.
Any such publication or disclosure is treated as a gross breach of privilege of
the House[30].
PRIVILEGE OF
FREEDOM FROM ARREST OR MOLESTATION
The privilege of freedom from
arrest is confined only to civil cases for the duration of the Session and for
a period of forty days before and forty days after the Session. The object of
this privilege is to ensure the safe arrival and regular attendance of Members
in Parliament. The arrest of a Member of Parliament in civil proceedings during
the period when he is exempted from such arrest is a breach of privilege and
the Member concerned is entitled to release. This privilege of freedom from
arrest does not, however, extend to criminal offence or cases of detention
under the preventive detention[31].
Although Members do not have any
privilege or immunity from arrest on a criminal charge or under any law for
preventive detention the House has a right to receive immediate information of
the arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment and release of a Member. This
position is stated in Rules 222A[32] and
222B[33] of
the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha.
The failure on the part of a judge
or a magistrate or other authority to inform the House of the arrest/detention
or imprisonment of a Member would constitute a breach of privilege of the
House.
Another privilege which a Member under custody enjoys is his right
to correspond without any let or hindrance with the Chairman/Speaker,
Secretary-General or Chairman of a Parliamentary Committee. It is a breach of
privilege to withhold any communication addressed by a member in custody to the
Chairman/Speaker, Secretary-General or the Chairman of a Parliamentary
Committee.
No arrest, whether of a member or of a stranger can be made within
the precincts of the House without containing the prior permission of the
Chairman/Speaker and that too in accordance with procedure laid down by the
Home Ministry in this regard. Similarly no legal process, civil or criminal,
can be served within the precincts of the House without obtaining the prior
permission of the Chairman/Speaker whether the House is in Session or not. As a
corollary to this rule, the court of law should not seek to serve a legal
process, civil or criminal, on Members of Parliament through the
Chairman/Speaker or the Rajya Sabha/Lok Sabha Secretariat. The appropriate
procedure is for the summons to be served direct on Members concerned outside
the precincts of Parliament, that is, at their residence or at some other
place. A court of law should not also ask the Chairman/Speaker or the Rajya
Sabha/Lok Sabha Secretariat to inform a Member about issue of a legal process
against him or seek to utilise in any manner the agency of the Chairman/Speaker
or of the Secretariats of the Houses in the Service or execution of a legal
process, civil or criminal, against a Member.
USE OF HANDCUFFS
There is no privilege specifically exempting a Member of Parliament,
who is under arrest on a criminal charge, from being handcuffed. The Committee
of Privileges in their Nineteenth Report presented to the House on 31st August,
1976, have observed that the instructions regarding handcuffing of prisoners by
the Union Ministry of Home Affairs from time to time should be strictly and
scrupulously followed by all the authorities concerned of that State
Governments and Union Territory Administrations and there should ordinarily be
no occasion to handcuff prisoners such as Members of Parliament, Members of
State Legislatures, peaceful satyagrahis, persons occupying good positions in
public life and professionals like jurists, journalists, doctors, writers and
educationists[34].
POINTS OF PROPRIETY
POINTS OF PROPRIETY
In addition to
privileges of Parliament, its Members and Committees, there are certain
parliamentary practices, usages and conventions which should be followed by the
members, and others. The violation of such parliamentary practices, usages and
conventions would not technically constitute a breach of privilege or contempt
of the House but such violation would be termed as 'impropriety'.
Some typical
instances under this category are listed below which, however, are not
exhaustive:
1. Giving a premature publicity to various matters connected with the
business of the House is an act of impropriety but not a breach of privilege or
contempt of the House.
2. If any statement is made on the floor of the House by a Member or
Minister which another Member believes to be untrue, incomplete or incorrect,
it does not constitute a breach of privilege. If an incorrect statement is
made, there are other remedies by which the issue can be decided. A breach of
privilege can arise only when the Member or the Minister makes a false
statement or an incorrect statement wilfully, deliberately and knowingly.
3. Leakage of budget proposals or official secrets does not form any
basis for a breach of privilege.
4. Statements made by Ministers at party meetings are not privileged.
5. No privilege of Parliament is involved if statements on matters of
public interest are not first made in the House and are made outside. Such
actions are against conventions and propriety but do not constitute any basis
on which breach of privilege can he founded.
6. It is not a breach of privilege if documents intended for Members
are circulated to the Press and non-Members first, but such acts are
deprecated.
Where the
report of a Committee has been presented to the House, its publication by the
Press before copies of the report have been made available to members, is
undesirable, but it is not a breach of privilege of the House[35].
No breach of
privilege is involved if a member's speech has not been covered in full or has
been covered in a summary form in the Press or over the Radio or T.V. It is
also not a breach of privilege if a particular speech is not covered as
adequately as other speeches, or is not given prominence.
Non-implementation
of an assurance given by a Minister on the floor of the House is neither a
breach of privilege nor contempt of the House, for the process of
implementation of a policy matter is conditional on a number of factors
contributing to such policy.
No question of
privilege is involved if letters of members are intercepted by censors because
censorship is provided under the law. Section 26 authorizes censorship on the
occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety or
tranquility[36].
[1]
Kashyap, Subhash, C., “Parliamentary Procedure : Law, Privileges, Practices
& Procedure”, Universal Law
Publication, 2nd Ed, (2007).
[2]
Article 105: Power, Privileges etc., of the House of Parliament and of the
members and committees thereof.
[3]
Article 194: Power, Privileges etc., of the House of Legislature and of the
members and committees thereof.
[4]
Kumar,Narender., “Constitutional Law of India”, 5th ed, 2006. p-645.
[5]
(1989) L.J. (N.S) Q.B. 294.
[6]
Protection of president and Governor and Rajpramukhs, Article 361.
[9] Section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1978 came into force with effect from the 20th June, 1979.
[10] Supra No.36.
[11] Supra No.29.
[12] Supra No.30.
[13] Ibid.
[14]Supra No.31.
[15] Supra No.37.
[16] Rules 222A and 222B of the
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha.
[17] First Report of Committee
of Privileges of Rajya Sabha presented to the House on the 1st May, 1958
[18] Sixth Report of Committee
of Privileges of Second Lok Sabha, adopted by Lok Sabha on the 17th December,
1958 and Thirty-third Report of the Committee of Privileges of Rajya Sabha,
adopted by the House on 30th March, 1993).
[19] Kashyap, Subhash, C., Parliamentary
Privileges : Use & Misuse, Press Council of India Review, 16, 1995
(Jan) Pp. 26 – 28.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] J.P.I., Privilege Issue,
Journal of Parliamentary Information, 52 (3). 2006 (Sep). Pp. 343 -344.
[23] M.S.M. Sharma, v. Shri Krishna Sinha, AIR. 1959, S.C. 395; Homi D. Mistry v. Nafisul Hassan, I.L.R. 1957, Bombay 218.
[24] <http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/70v2a3.htm>,<
last visited on 20th of Feb, 2009>.
[25] Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1989 of the United Kingdom.
[26] Krishnan, Anirudh., “Parliamentary Privileges : History &
Conflict with Freedom of Press”, Madras
Law Journal, Vol 1, (2004), Pp. 4 – 10.
[27]Supra No.39.
[28] Supra No.30.
[29] Article 361 : Protection of Publication of proceedings of
Parliament and State Legislature.
[30] Basavaraju, B.,” Parliamentary Privileges & Fundamental Rights:
Need for a Codified Law”, Indian Bar
Review, Vol 26 (3&4), (1999), Pp. 155 – 164.
[31]< http://rajyasabha.gov.in/publ/privileges.html>,
<last visited on 27th of Feb, 2009>.
[32] Rule 222 A: Intimation
regarding arrest detention, etc. of member.
[33] Rule 222 B : Intimation
regarding release of members.
[34] Committee of Privileges in their Fifth Lok Sabha of Nineteenth Report presented to the House on
31st August, 1976.
[35] Patil, Shivraj, P., “Power, Privileges of Parliamentarians”, Journal of Constitution and Parliamentary
Studies, 35, (2001) Jan – Jun, Pp 17 – 28.
[36] Section 26: The Post Office Act, 1898.
