UPSC Mains Answer: The ‘Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and its Members’ as envisaged in Article 105 of the-Constitution leave room for a large number of un-codified and un-enumerated privileges to continue. Assess the reasons for the absence of legal codification of the ‘parliamenta

Difficulty Level: Hard

Sub-category: Indian Polity and Constitution (Parliamentary Procedures and Privileges)

Introduction

Article 105 of the Indian Constitution grants Parliament and its members certain powers, privileges, and immunities essential for the effective functioning of a democratic legislature. However, these privileges remain largely un-codified, leading to ambiguity and potential misuse. The absence of legal codification stems from historical, practical, and constitutional complexities.

Body

historical_context: The origins of parliamentary privileges in India can be traced to the British parliamentary system, where privileges evolved as unwritten conventions. The framers of the Indian Constitution, influenced by this tradition, incorporated Article 105 to ensure parliamentary autonomy while leaving the specifics un-enumerated to allow flexibility.

Reasons for absence of codification

flexibility: Un-codified privileges allow Parliament to adapt to evolving needs without frequent constitutional amendments.

Judicial restraint

Courts have historically deferred to Parliament on matters of privilege to avoid judicial overreach, as seen in cases like Keshav Singh (1965).

Political consensus

Codification requires broad political agreement, which has been elusive due to divergent views on the extent of privileges.

Fear of misuse

Codification might limit Parliament’s ability to act swiftly in cases of contempt or breach of privilege, as rigid definitions could be exploited. addressing_the_problem: selective_codification: Key privileges, such as freedom of speech and immunity from arrest, could be codified while retaining flexibility for others.

Judicial oversight

Establishing a mechanism for judicial review of privilege claims, as recommended by the 2008 National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, could balance autonomy and accountability.

Parliamentary committees

A dedicated committee could periodically review and recommend updates to privileges, ensuring they align with democratic principles.

Public debate

Encouraging public discourse on the necessity and limits of privileges could foster consensus and transparency.

Conclusion

While un-codified privileges offer flexibility, their ambiguity risks undermining accountability and democratic values. A balanced approach—combining selective codification, judicial oversight, and institutional reforms—can address this challenge, ensuring Parliament’s autonomy without compromising constitutional principles.