The Myth & Reality of Parliamentary Privileges

The Myth and Reality of
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES


By A. C. Vashishtha
Words: 1506

Not-so- far-codified parliamentary privileges of our elected representatives have always been in the news and a matter of controversy. Like the mother who every other moment hurls the "I'll slap you" threat to his errant child, we also hear our parliamentarians threaten a privilege motion against every Tom, Dick and Harry. The latest has been the case of Indian Muslim League Member of Rajya Sabha, Mr. Abdul Wahab from Kerala who was made to leave the Air India aircraft before takeoff from Kozhikode on April 7 after a tiff with the pilot. The MP is reported to have threatened to move a privilege motion against the erring airline staff.

Whether the incident involves breach of privilege is a question that is the unchallenged discretion of the Rajya Sabha Chairman or Lok Sabha Speaker. But for academic interest, it is useful to understand what, in effect, can amount to a breach of parliamentary/legislative privilege although during the last sixty years no effort – and perhaps deliberately! – has been made to define it.

Our public representatives, honourable as they are, are yet human beings. And to err is human. An error whether of words or actions, can invite criticism and reproach from the people who bestow the aura of 'honour' on our public representatives on the strength of their vote. It is the people who make and unmake our elected representatives; the latter derive all their power and privileges from the people.

Yet, our public representatives seem to be growing more and more zealous and protective of their rights and privileges. They overlook their duties. The thin attendance at the time of important debates in our legislatures, at times having to be adjourned a number of times for want of quorum because the members had more important business other than legislative to take care of – the legislative business for which they are paid hefty pay, perks, allowances and, above all, the privileges. Any criticism of theirs, exposure of their activities these days invariably inviting motions of breach of privilege guaranteed.

The privileges are, no doubt, necessary for the proper exercise of the functions entrusted to Parliament by the Constitution "to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament", according to famous authority on parliamentary business Mr. M. N. Kaul,. These are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and the vindication of its authority and dignity. The privileges have been granted to members so that "they may be able to perform their duties in Parliament without let or hindrance". (Report of Committee of Privileges in Captain Ramsay case House of Commons (H.C. 164(1939-40) p vi, para 19)

Yet, privileges "do not discharge the member from the obligations to society which apply to him as much and perhaps more closely in that capacity, as they apply to other subjects" (H. C. 1951 Lewis case). These "do not place a member of Parliament on a footing different from that of an ordinary citizen in the matter of laws." (Committee of Speakers 1956).

Even after winning an election, a public representative does not lose his individual identity and personal existence – a person with his own profession, vocation and a circle of his own relations, friends and acquaintances. The one facet of his personality as a private individual engrossed in his personal affairs and business promotion cannot be made a part and parcel of his other facet of a public representative. Nor can – and should – both these aspects come into clash with each other. A respectable distance and dichotomy between the two has to be maintained for a harmonious functioning. The powers, functions and duties of the one should not transgress into the field of the other.

A public representative may come to have a clash of interests and, in the process, there could be some infringement of civil or criminal law even. But that does not provide a privilege to him against his spouse, brothers, parents and other relatives because these have nothing to do with his duties, functions and powers as a public representative. There may, at times, be a hot exchange of words or a brawl between two individuals without the other knowing even that the other is a public representative. That is why no person can – and should – claim privilege or immunity in anything said or done in his personal capacity as a private individual, whether in matters concerning himself, his family or profession. And that is why the Constitution gives the members of Parliament and of State legislatures the privilege and immunity only from "any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof" and not in any of their other functions or speeches delivered outside the House. Protected by the security ring of "proceedings in Parliament" and in State legislatures) these privileges do not extend beyond the legislative building, except when they are prevented from attending the session of Parliament or Assembly.

The concept of parliamentary privileges has been adopted by us in India on the pattern of the one prevailing in the British Parliament and is, more or less, governed and guided by the famous treatise May's Parliamentary Practice. The contempt of the House, according to May, is "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…"

Breach of privilege means a disregard of any of the rights, privileges and immunities either of members of Parliament individually, or of the House in its collective capacity. Referring to various debates in the House of Commons and the Lok Sabha in Procedure and Practice of Parliament M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdhar state that "in order to constitute a breach of privilege, a libel upon a member of Parliament must concern his character or conduct in his capacity as a member of the House and must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House. Reflections upon members otherwise than in their capacity as members do not, therefore, involve a breach or privilege or contempt of the House. Similarly, speeches or writings containing vague charges against members or criticizing their parliamentary conduct in a strong language particularly in the heat of a public controversy without, however, imputing any malafides are not treated by the House as a contempt or breach of privilege".

Every activity of a member of Parliament does not attract the privilege. The House of Commons in 1958 rejected the opinion of the Committee of Privileges "that a particular letter written by a member to a Minister relating to a Nationalised Industry was a proceeding in Parliament".

Privilege of freedom from arrest "cannot extend or be contended to operate, where the member of Parliament is charged with an indictable offence". (Case of Venkateswarlyu, AIR 1951, Madras 272). Further, "the House will not allow even the sanctuary of its walls to protect a member from the process of criminal law" (May, p. 101)

The Constitution, the law and the parliamentary practice in India and the United Kingdom, therefore, clearly draw a distinct dividing line between the duties and functions of a public representative as a parliamentarian in the House and those outside, the latter bereft of the element of privilege.

In the Import Licence Case that surfaced about 15 years back, allegations of bribery and forgery of signatures of other MPs for promoting the cause of certain applicants were made. But the question of privilege was disallowed since the conduct of the member, although improper, was not related to the business of the House. At the same time it was held that as the allegations of bribery and forgery were serious and unbecoming of a member of Parliament, he could be held guilty of lowering the dignity of the House (Kaul and Shakdhar, ibid p. 231)

On the contrary, on the conduct of certain JMM MPs who voted for the Narasimharao Government during a vote of confidence in the House after allegedly receiving money, the Supreme Court held that trial must proceed against the alleged ``bribe-givers'' but not against the alleged ``bribe-takers'' since they enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution which states that ``no MP 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.''

There is a very thin line dividing the two facets of an individual's personality – personal and the one as a representative elected by the people. During the course of one's life one has to come face to face with the realities of life. One must be ready to face such situation. What is important is not whether it involves parliamentary privilege or not, but the truth and the truth alone. A public representative should fight for truth, for the unearthing of it. And the truth prevails; it must always prevail.