PRIVILEGE AND WORKING OF
COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES IN PARLIAMENT
The procedure
for dealing with questions of privilege is laid down in Rules 187 to 203 of the
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha.
A question of
privilege may be raised in the House only after obtaining the consent of the
Chairman. This has been made obligatory so that the time of the House is not
taken up by raising a matter which, on the face of it, is not admissible. A
member who wishes to raise a question of privilege is, therefore, required to
give advance notice in writing to the Secretary General.
The question
whether a matter complained of, is actually a breach of privilege or contempt
of the House is entirely for the House to decide, as the House alone is the
master of its privileges. The Chairman, in giving his consent to the raising of
a matter in the House as a question of privilege, considers only whether there
is a prima facie case for
further inquiry and whether it should be brought before the House. In giving
his consent, the Chairman is guided by the following conditions prescribed for
the admissibility of questions of privilege:
Not more than one question shall be raised at the same
sitting;
the question shall be restricted to a specific matter of recent
occurrence; and
the matter requires the intervention of the House.
A question of privilege should thus be raised by a member at the
earliest opportunity and should require the interposition of the House[1].
The Chairman,
before deciding whether the matter proposed to be raised as a question of
privilege requires the intervention of the House and whether he should give his
consent to the raising of the matter in the House, may give an opportunity to
the person sought to be incriminated to explain his case to the Chairman. When
a member seeks to raise a question of privilege against another member, the
Chairman before giving his consent to the raising of the matter in the House,
always gives an opportunity to the Member complained against to place before
him or the House such facts as may be germane to the matter. Likewise when a
complaint is made against a Minister for making misleading statements in the
House or on other grounds, the Chairman invariably seeks the comments of the Minister
concerned before deciding whether a prima
facie case exists or not.
If a newspaper
reports incorrectly the proceedings of the House or comments casting
reflections on the House or its members, the Chairman, in the first instance,
gives an opportunity to the editor of the newspaper to present his case before
giving his consent to the raising of a question of privilege in the House. The
Chairman may withhold his consent to raising a question of privilege after the
editor of Press correspondent of the newspaper concerned has expressed regrets
or published a correction.
After the
Chairman has given his consent to the raising of a matter in the House as a
question of privilege the member who tabled the notice has, when called by the
Chairman, to ask for leave of the House to raise the question of privilege.
While asking for such leave, the member concerned is permitted to make only a
short statement relevant to the question of privilege. If objection to leave
being granted is taken, the Chairman requests those members who are in favor of
leave being granted to rise in their places. If twenty five or more members
rise accordingly, the House is deemed to have granted leave to raise the matter
and the Chairman declares that leave is granted; otherwise the Chairman informs
the member that he does not have the leave of the House to raise the matter.
A question of
privilege is accorded priority over other items in the List of Business.
Accordingly, leave to raise a question of privilege is asked for after the questions
and before other items in the order paper are taken up.
After leave is
granted by the House for raising a question of privilege, the matter may either
be considered or decided, by the House itself, or it may be referred by the
House, on a motion made by any member, to the Committee of Privileges and the
House defers its judgment until the report of the Committee has been presented.
However, in cases where the House finds that the matter is too trivial or that
the offender has already tendered an adequate apology, the House itself
disposes of the matter by deciding to proceed no further in the matter.
The Chairman is
empowered to refer, suo motu, any question of privilege or contempt to
the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report. In doing
so, the Chairman need not bring the matter before the House for consideration
and decision as to whether the matter be referred to the Committee.
The Committee
of Privileges examines every question of privilege referred to it and
determines with reference to the facts of each case whether a breach of
privilege is involved and, if so, the nature of the breach, the circumstances
leading to It and make such recommendations as it may deem fit. The Committee
of Privileges has the power to send for persons, papers and records and can
take evidence of the persons involved in the matter and call for any documents
concerning the question of privilege under consideration the Committee in cases
where the facts are in dispute, the Committee of Privileges takes evidence of
witness.
After the report of the Committee has been
presented to the House, the Chairman or any member of the Committee may move
that the report be taken into consideration. After the report is taken into
consideration, the Chairman or any member of the Committee or any other member
may move that the House agrees or disagrees or agrees with amendments, with the
recommendations contained in the report. The motion that the report of the
Committee of Privileges be taken into consideration is given the same priority
as is given to a question of Privilege under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure
and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha. Further action is taken in accordance
with the decisions of the House on the report of the Committee.
[1]
J.P.I, “Privilege Issue”, Journal of
Parliamentary Information, 52(3), Sep (2006), Pp. 343 – 344.
