NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

TORTS Project on

“PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES”

SUBMITTED TO -

SUBMITTED BY –

PRAGYA PANDEY (15bba038)

KIRTI VYAS (15bba029) DATE – 16 SEP 2015

1
 OBJECTIVES

I.
To understand the meaning of the term parliamentary privileges and parliamentary
privileges as a defense in tort.
II.
To study about parliamentary privileges in different nations, particularly in U.K and
U.S.

III. To study what are parliamentary privileges in respect to constitution .

IV. To assess the need of codification of parliamentary privileges.

2
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study is doctrinal and based on primary and secondary data gathered from different
sources including constitutional provisions, statues, case laws, books, law journals, & online
databases. Descriptive research incorporates overviews, and actuality discovering request of
diverse mixtures.

3
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

I. What are parliamentary privileges in terms of torts?

II. Is there any difference between parliamentary privileges in India and other countries?

III. Is there a need of codification of parliamentary privileges in India?

IV. Whether parliamentary privileges in India are absolute?

4
 CHAPTERIZATION

I. CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION

II. CHAPTER TWO: PARLIAMENTARY PRIVELEGES IN U.K AND U.S
In this chapter we are going to study what are parliamentary privileges in U.K and
U.S.

III. CHAPTER THREE: PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN TORTS

in this chapter we are going to talk about parliamentary privilege as a defense of
defamation in torts.

IV. CHAPTER FOUR: PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN CONSTITUTION

in this chapter we are going to focus on articles concerning parliamentary privilege,
parliamentary privileges v/s constitutional provisions.

V. CHAPTER FIVE: NEED FOR CODIFICATION OF PARLIAMENTARY

PRIVILEGES
in this chapter we are going to question whether there is need of codification of
parliamentary privileges in India or not .

VI. CONCLUSION

5
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Parliamentary privilege is an inclusive term which incorporates certain rights and immunities
delighted in by the legislatures these benefits empower the legislature to release its capacity
adequately ,bravely with no outside impedance, they are additionally crucial to ensure the
power and respect of legislature . According to Erikson May
“…parliamentary privileges is the sum of exceptional rights delighted in by
every house altogether as a constituent of high court of the parliament and
members of each house without which they could not discharge its functions
and which surpass those controlled by different body and people.”
1

The British parliament ,which is viewed as the support of parliamentary foundations all ovr
the world ,has specific forces and rights ,for example ‘the ability to rebuff for rupture of
privilege’ and ‘right to prohibit the distribution of its procedures’ . ‘right to speak freely in
the house’ is also provided to the members of house of commons. The announcement of the
speaker of british parliament reflects upon the legal character of a House of Commons. The
British Parliament members appreciate much more extensive privileges than the other in the
world, which owe their authority to the incomparable and composed Constitution2.

In U.S v Johnson the U.S Supreme Court has held that the speeches made by the congress
members could not be utilized against them .3 Similarly, in Hutchinson v. Proxmire 4, the U.S
.Supreme Court has held that a common suit couldn't be established against the congress
person for defamatory articulations made by him on the floor of the Senate (Upper House of
the Congress).
In Indian Constitution parliamentary privileges are under article 105 and 194.
“The supreme court has held that the absolute immunity of a member for anything saying
anything "said" is the legislature, under article 105 clause (2) or article 194 clause (2) extends
to "everything said by member in the house while it was sitting and doing its business of the
house”5 . Parliamentary privileges and the effect of article 105 was explained in the case of
P.v Narsima Rao 6“in respect of in article 105(2) it must be held that article 105 (2) protects a

1
Erisksin May , Treatise on the Law , Privileges Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (23 edn, Lexis Nexis, U.K
2004) 75
2
Susan child ,Politico guide to Parliament (Lawman India pvt Ltd,1999)
3
U.S v Johnson 383 U.S 169( 1966)
4
Hutchison v proxmire (1979) 443 U.S 111
5
Tej kiran v sanjeeva reddy (1970) AIR SC 1573
6
Ramaswamy iyer’s , the law of torts (2007) (10th edition )
6
member of parliament against proceedings of court that relate to or concern or have
connection or nexus with anything said or a vote given by him in parliament”7There are
numerous undetermined legitimate inquiries emerging out from certain late and the past
contentions concerning the parliamentary privileges which should be addressed so that the
individual ‘s interest of the residents are protected without melding with the proficient and
compelling working of the legislatures. In this project we are going to deal with
parliamentary privileges and some of its aspects .

7
P.V Narsima Rao v state (1998) CBI/SPE 4 scc 626
7
 CHAPTER TWO: PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN U.K AND U.S

In a democratic system, ‘the right to speak freely’ is essential for looking after the freedom of
the legislature and to empower its individuals to satisfy their obligations in a powerful and
operative way. The legislative members must have the capacity to express their perspectives
fairly in the house without the dread of being indicted by the courts. Because if they are sued
for the proclamations made in the house on the ground of slander, then they will be
demoralized from communicating their view on different issues.

Further, a legal interruption, concerning the legislative capacities of the administrative body,
would be violative of 'Separation of Powers' which is the generally acknowledged by
established rule. Moreover, in the Countries like India and U. K., having the 'Parliamentary
form of (Government)', the law making bodies need to guarantee the responsibility of the
executive organ of the State to the general population. The cabinet is liable to the lower place
of the assembly.8 Amid the 'Question Hour' , the members are allowed to question and
demand acquiring data on a matter of public import inside of the exceptional insight of the
individual priests9. The individual of the assemblies likewise assess the organization's
working and constructively condemn the strategies of the Government. Without a flat out
freedom to survey the arrangements of the Government guaranteed to the individuals from
the legislature, the standard of 'dependable government' can't be adequately maintained.

Therefore, any infringement of the flexibility of discourse of individuals from the

authoritative bodies is viewed as the 'rupture of privilege' and culpable as being what is
indicated. Additionally, a safety to a person who has distributed any reports, paper, votes on
the other hand procedures under the Legislature's power, from any lawful obligation, is the

8
For more details about ‘Ministerial Responsibility’, See U. N. Gupta, Indian Parliamentary Democracy
(Vol.1,Atlantic Publishers and Distrbutors, New Delhi 2003) 59

9
In the LokSabha, the first hour of every sitting (11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon) is exclusively devoted to asking
questions by the members to the concerned ministers. For detailed discussion on ‘The Question Hour’, See S. G.
Deogaonkar, Parliamentary System in India(Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi 1997) 77

8
branch of the 'right to speak freely' in the Houses of Legislature. In the later times, dynamic
authoritative changes have been made in a few nations like United Kingdom4610, Australia11
and India to permit the distribution of genuine and precise reports of the Houses' procedures,
in compliance with common decency, regardless of the fact that such distribution is made
without the Houses' approval. Then again, the Houses' privilege to preclude the distribution
of the cancelled segments of the discourses or to complete mystery gatherings has not been
influenced.

Positions in other countries :-

I. UK

The Freedom of Speech in the British Parliament is perceived under Article IX of the Bill of
Rights 1688, which expresses that the flexibility of discourse or level headed discussions or
procedures in Parliament should not to be reprimanded or questioned in wherever out of
Parliament counting the courts. A Member of Parliament in United Kingdom is allowed to
talk anything including the announcements harming or hostile to the next people and should
not to be made at risk to any court for slander or attack. The immunity from any legitimate
activity in appreciation of anything said amid the procedures of Parliament is additionally
material to the announcements distraught in Parliamentary Committees by Individuals from
Parliament and the witnesses showing up before such boards. As per Erskine May, 'Subject to
the tenets of request in civil argument, a part might state whatever he supposes fit in civil
argument, however offensive it might be to the emotions, or 12injurious to the character, of
people; and he is shielded by his benefit from any activity for defamation, and also from
whatever other inquiry or attack.'

The British Parliament likewise has a privilege to direct the close door talks about or
procedures by barring the outsiders and preclude the production of the same. Any
encroachment of this guideline may achieve the activity for rupture of benefit. Be that as it

10
See, Defamation Act, 1996 of U.K. s. 18
11
Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1987 of Australia s.10 (1), See Annexure IIIfor the Full Text of the Act

12
Erskine May,Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament(23 edn, Lexis Nexis, U.K.
rd

2004) 96

9
may, the Parliamentary Papers Act, 1840 of United Kingdom gives synopsis assurance to
persons utilized in the production of Parliamentary Papers. Under area 1 of the Act, any
individual against whom any respectful or criminal continuing are started, with respect to the
production of any report, paper, votes, or procedures by or under the power of either House
of Parliament, is qualified for produce the authentication and testimony to that impact, in the
court. The court corridor, immediately, be obliged to quickly stay such procedures. Under
area 3 of the Act, it might be legitimate in any thoughtful or criminal procedures for any
individual to demonstrate that the reprimanded production was concentrate from or unique of
report, paper, votes, or procedures of either House of Parliament gave that the general
population ation was made in bonafide way with no malignance. Deciphering the said
procurement, Lord Denning in Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Dingle said:

If a newspaper seeks to rely on the privilege attaching to aparliamentary paper; it

can print an extract from the parliamentary paper and can make any fair
comment on it and it can reasonablyexpect other newspapers to do the same. But
if it adds its own spice and prints a story to the same effect as the parliamentary
paper, andgarnishes and embellishes it with circumstantial detail, it goes beyond
the privilege and becomes subject to the general law. None of its storyon that
occasion is privileged. It has "put the meat on the bones" and must answer for
the whole joint. If it cannot justify it, it must pay damages: and it cannot
diminish these by reference to the privileged reports, which it and others may
have given previously13.

In Wason v. Walter14, it was held that the distributer had the privilege to publish an precise
report of the civil arguments of the House of Lords with no noxiousness. The standard 49
Erskine May, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Us time of Parliament has now
been consolidated in Section 15 of the Defamation Act, 1996, which says that the distribution
of specific reports or other statements, said in Schedule 1 of the Act, is advantaged unless the
distribution is shown to be made with malignance. Be that as it may, the security is not
stretched out to the publication of anything, which is not of open concern and not for open
advantage.The Joint Committee of House of Lords and House of Lodge on Parliamentary

13
Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Dingle, [1964] A. C.371, p. 411

14
Wason v. Walter (1868) L.R. IV Q.B. 73
10
Benefits in its First Report distributed in 199915has suggested that consultative advisers for
individuals from both Houses on the activity of the benefit of opportunity of discourse ought
to be drawn up.

II. US

Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides that for any discourse or open
deliberation in either house, the Congress' Members might not be addressed in whatever other
spot.The helpers of the Congressmen can likewise assert this privilege.16 In United States v.
Johnson, a Congressman was sentenced on the charge of cons theft to convey a good
discourse for pay in the House of Representatives with a specific end goal to impact the
Justice Department to release pending prosecutions against certain credit organizations.17The
Government claimed that the discourse was conveyed in lacking honesty to serve private
hobbies. The U. S. Incomparable Court held that Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution,
banished any legal investigation into the inspiration for, and circumstances encompassing a
discourse made by the individual from House of Delegate. The Court watched that the Speech
or Debate Clause was designed to ensure the individuals from Congress against indictment by
a perhaps unfriendly official and conviction by a perhaps unfriendly legal. The Court's
maintained the Court choice of Appeal to put aside the conviction on the trick check.

In Hutchinson v. Proxmire18, the U. S.Court has made it clear that the Discourse or Debate
Clause' is not planned to make total benefit from obligation for defamatory articulations made
outside the legislative Chambers by the individuals from the Congress. For this situation, the
respondent Senator made a discourse in the Senate about the inefficient administrative
spending by the government a genies that had subsidized the applicant researcher's
investigation of behavioural examples of specific creatures. The content of the discourse was
later included in the press discharge and in the pamphlets conveyed by the senator. The Court
held that the press discharge and the bulletins being a piece of educating capacity of the part
were not essential standard of the deliberative procedure of the Senate and they spoke to the

15
United Kingdom Parliament <http://publications.parliament.uk./pa/> accessed 23 October,
2008

16
Gravel v. United States, 408 U. S. 606 (1972)
17
United States v. Johnson 383 U. S. 169 (1966)
18
Hutchinson v. Proxmire 443 U. S. 111 (1979)
11
perspectives and will of the single individual part and not the aggregate perspective of the
Congress. Remarking upon the nature and extent of the Speech & Debate Clause, Craig Ducat
has watched .

...any award of supreme insusceptibility conveys the strong ial for fiendishness. On
the off chance that a delegate or congressperson makes defamatory statements
outside the corridors of Congress, he is liable to suit by the injured gathering as
anybody else. Be that as it may, if those announcements are made on the floor on
the other hand in the Committee rooms, such proclamations - regardless of how
flippant or harming - can't lawfully be held against him. The strain wager ween
keeping up the Congress' honesty and safeguarding invulnerability that much of the
time seems to put the lawmaker above law infests all choices deciphering the
Speech and Debate Clause. The Supreme Court has tried to walk this Constitutional
tightrope by recognizing conduct that is a piece of the administrative procedure
from that which is most certainly not19.

The above-expressed remarks shows that an unmistakable qualification ought to be made

between the announcements made by the individuals from governing bodies over the span of
the procedures of the House and explanations made or distributed by them outside the House.
Any understanding of procurement of the Constitution ensuring the insusceptibility in
admiration of anything said in the house ought to be translated in consonance with the article
to be accomplished by the procurement. The basic role of the established security given to the
right to speak freely is to ensure the independent and viable working of the legislative body.
The individual from the legislative body ought not be allowed to make colourable utilization
of the resistance enjoyed by him and replicate the questionable/defamatory articulations,
made by him in the house, outside the house. Such a demonstration would add up to playing
misrepresentation on the provisions of the Constitution and would likewise vanquish the very
reason for presenting the said safety on the individual from the legislative body.

19
Craig Ducat, Constitutional Interpretation(8thedn Thomson West 2004) 173

12
 CHAPTER THREE: PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN TORTS

The word tort has been derived from the Latin word “tortum” which is twisted. 20 “Tortuous
liability arises from breach of duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards person
generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.”21.
In defamation privilege is a type of defense used by parliament members and state legislature
.Privilege is of two types : Absolute and Qualified
Absolute Privilege: means a statement is absolutely privilege when no action lies for it
despite the fact that it is false and defamatory and made with express noxiousness on certain
ocasion the enthusiasm of society oblige that a man ought to stand up of his psyche
completely and to be perfectly honest, without thought or trepidation e.g in parliamentary
procedures, legal , military procedures to such events thusly a law connects a flat out benefit
.It is based upon the vital that interest of the group everywhere overwrites the interest of a
person.
Absolute privileges are of various types: parliamentary privileges and judicial proceedings
Our project is focusing on parliamentary privileges as a defense of defamation. In England it
is declared by the bill of rights 1668 22, that the freedom of speech and debates of proceedings
in parliament ought not to be impreached or questioned in any court or place outside
parliament. Therefore there is an absolute privilege or immunity from suit for speeches made
in the houses of parliament ,23 proceedings before the committees 24, and petition to the
parliament ; but not for statement made by a member outside parliament , 25or in the lobbies
26
or smoking room, or by stranger in the visitor’s gallery or a report published outside of a
speech inside parliament27 .

20
Salmond and heuston , law of torts (1992) (20th edition) f.n.54
21
Winfield and jolowicz ,on tort (1984) ,(12th edition) p 3
22
Article 9 parliamentary privilege act 1958 AC 331
23
Exparte wason (1869) LR 4 QB 573 , P 576, PER COCKBURN CJA
24
Goffin v donnelly (1881) 6 QBD 307
25
Wern, beit co. v markham (1907) 18 TLR 763
26
Rivilin v bilankin (1953) 1 KB 485 (communication to members not connected with any proceedings, not
protected from contempt proceeding from violating of court .
27
Church of scientology of California v Johnson smith (1970) 1 ALL ER 378
13
 CHAPTER FOUR: PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN CONSTITUTION

“The parliamentary privileges are certain rights belonging to Parliament together and some

others belonging to the Members of Parliaments seperately, without which it would

not be possible for the parliament to maintain its independence of action or the dignity of its

position or for the members to discharge their function”28

The parliamentary privileges appended to the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha not in view of
any claimed position of the individuals, yet these are considered totally neccessary to control
its own procedures in a trained, more productive and undisturbed way and with a specific end
goal to show its power and respect.

Benefits may be arranged into two gatherings:

1. Benefits that are delighted in by the individuals independently and

2. Benefits that have a place with every House (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) of Parliament as a
whole.

I. Benefits that are appreciated by individuals Individually

The Privileges and immunities appreciated by the individuals separately are:

Freedom of speech,

Freedom from arrest and

Exemption from attendance as jurors and witnesses.:

Freedom of speech: According to the Indian Constitution, the parliamentarians appreciate the

28
May: Parliamentary Practice (i6th Ed.), Page: 42.
14
right to speak freely and express freely. No part can be berated anyplace outside the
boundaries of the House (e.g. court of law) or can't be victimized for communicating his/her
perspectives in the House and its Committees.

The essential thought of expanding this flexibility being the need that each part would
advance without trepidation or support his/her contentions for or against any matter before
the House.

On the other hand, the Rules of system for the behavior of Business in the Houses of
Parliament put certain limitations on this flexibility. That is, a part's right to speak freely
ought to be in adjustment to the tenets encircled by the House to control its inner
methodology.

Moreover, the privilege of the right to speak freely is limited and does not mean an excessive
permit of discourse. For instance, our Constitution prohibits talk in Parliament on the
behavior of judges with the exception of on movement for their evacuation. In this
association, it might be brought up that in India, there have been conflicts between the right
to speak freely as ensured to the individuals from .parliament and basic rights as given to the
general population under Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution.

Freedom from arrest: The individuals from Parliament likewise appreciate flexibility from
arrest. From this flexibility it is comprehended that no such part should be captured in a
common case 40 days previously, then after the fact the House's suspension (Lok Sabha or
Rajya Sabha) furthermore when the House is in session.

It additionally implies that no part can be captured inside of the Parliament's regions without
the House's consent to which he/she has a place. At the point when an individual from the
House is captured or kept, the power concerned ought to promptly educate the speaker or the
Chairman with respect to the explanations behind such capture. A part can be captured
outside the four dividers of the House on criminal cases under the Preventive Detention,
ESMA, NSA, POTA or some other such Act.

Exemption from attendance as jurors and witnesses :The individuals from Parliament
likewise appreciate flexibility from participation as a witnesses.

II. Privileges of the House collectively

There are additionally some different benefits which the House (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha)
15
by and large appreciates. These are:

The privilege to distribute open deliberations and procedures: Though by tradition, the
Parliament does not preclude the press to distribute its procedures, yet in fact the House has
each such right to disallow such production.

Once more, while a part has the benefit of the right to speak freely in Parliament, he has no
privilege to distribute it outside Parliament. Anybody abusing this guideline can be
considered in charge of any offensive matter it may contain under the normal law rules.

The privilege to prohibit outsiders: Each House of Parliament appreciates the privilege to
reject outsiders (no-individuals or guests) from the exhibitions whenever and to make plans
to wrangle with shut entryways. The discipline may be as exhortation, censure, or
detainment.

The privilege to rebuff individuals and outcasts for break of its benefits: In India, the
Parliament has been given correctional forces to rebuff the individuals who are declared
liable of scorn of the House. Such scorn can be conferred by the individuals from any House
or any untouchable.

At the point when an individual from the House is included for parliamentary rowdiness or
submits scorn he can be removed from the House.

The privilege to manage the inner issues of the House: In Indian Union, every House is a
High court of Parliament. Accordingly, the House has the privilege to direct its inside
undertakings. An individual from the House is allowed to say whatever he enjoys subject just
to the interior control of the House or the Committee concerned.

Conclusion

Parliamentary benefits have turned into an unpredictable issue, yet nowadays it is by and
large progressively understood that benefits are key for chose delegates of the general
population and the individuals from Parliament and such squeeze and in addition outside
open must regard these in genuine sense and soul.

16
 CHAPTER FIVE: NEED OF CODIFICATION OF PARLIAMENTARY
PRIVILEGES

Second part of Articles 105 (3) and 194 (3) of the Constitution require the Parliament also,
State Legislatures to systematize the other privileges (other than those gave under condition 1
and 2 of Articles 105 and 194) by law. First some piece of Articles 105 (3) and 194 (3) is a
fleeting component by which the privileges delighted in by the British House of Hall at the
beginning of the Indian Constitut particle are connected to the administrative bodies in India.
No law has been made to classify the benefits either by the Parliament or any of the
Legislatures of State. As a consequence of this, the law identifying with Parliamentary
benefits is solidified to 26Th January 1950.

The Codification Debate

The Constitution's designers planned Articles 105 (3) and 194 (3), which bargain with the
'Other Privileges' of the Parliament and Legislatures of the States, to be transitional and
expected that the benefits would before long be.In spite of the wishes of the establishing
fathers, no law has so far been made under articles 105 (3) and 194 (3) by the Parliament or
any of the State Legislatures to classify "alternate" benefits. The forces, benefits and
immunities of the assemblies and their individuals are still represented by points of reference
of the British House of Commons, as they existed on the initiation of the Indian Constitution.
The law identifying with the parliamentary Privileges in United Kingdom itself has
experienced a colossal change subsequent to 1950 however the Indian Legislatures have not
moved in the course of enhancing and developing the law that won in the House of Commons
on 26 January 1950. They secure that the classified law made in such manner will be
subjected to the Fundamental Rights under Article 13 and thus amiable to the locale of the
Courts. The Legislators feel that the codification is liable to hurt the notoriety and sway of
Parliament and State Legislatures with no advantage being presented on the general
population on the loose. They likewise fear the legal impedance in the procedures of the
Parliament and State Legislatures .29 The accompanying perspectives by Mr. M.

29
See, Dr. K. MadhusudhanaRao, ‘Codification of Parliamentary Privileges in India-Some

17
Hidayatullah, Former Vice President and Chairman, RajyaSabha, are apropos to note in such
manner-

On the off chance that there is shared trust and appreciation in the middle of
Parliament and Courts, there is not really any need to arrange the law on the
subject of benefit courts will be called upon more to intervene.... [A] composed
law will make it troublesome for Parliament and also Courts to keep up
thatrespect which rightly fits in with Parliament and which the courts will
dependablymaintain as ardently as they maintain their own. 30

The non-codification of the benefits has prompted the general feeling among the general
population that lawmaking bodies have purposely been shying far from making a law in such
manner. The Courts have endeavored to subject, the benefits and the Legislatures' force to
rebuff for their hatred, to the Fundamental Rights of the nationals and the opportunity of the
Press. The Legislatures have reliably asserted that the courts have no ward over them
concerning their benefits. Numerous clashing circumstances in the middle of Legislatures and
the Judiciary had emerged in the past over the jurisdictional issues relating to the un-
classified Legislative Privileges.

Reacting to the rehashed requests for the benefits' codification by the media, Former Speaker
of LokSabha, ShriShivarajPatil has watched

If benefits are classified, the matters would be taken to the courts and the
Members of Parliament and the Presiding Officers would be requested that
subject themselves to the locale of the legal and that would influence the
correspondence between the three wings of the Government and inopportune
influence the parliamentarians' benefits to express their perspectives without
apprehension or favor

Shanti Swaroop Singh in his book entitled “The Press and the Indian Parliament”,said that
“the prestige, reputation of parliament will be improved in the general population if it stands

Suggestions’,(2001) 7 SCC (Jour) 21

30
M. Hidaytullah, ‘Parliamentary Privileges: The Press and the Judiciary’, Journal of
Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, Vol. II, No.2, April-June, 1968, 43

18
the test of fundamental rights “31

The Press and the Civil Society, including legal advisors, academicians have long been the
codification of 'the other privileges i.e. other than those explicitly ensured under Article 105
for parliament and Article 194 for State Legislatures. As indicated by the Press Commission
of India Report (1954), the utilization of benefits delighted in by the House of Commons to
the Indian Legislatures is not fitting in light of the fact that it would be conflicting with the
Indian conditions and the composed Constitution, which accommodates the enforceable
Principal Rights.32

Justice A.N Grover said that “ there should be a codification of privileges and the parliament
members should have full confidence in the court as the courts are constitutional machinery
and they cannot put all their actions unconstitutional.”33

Justice V.R Krishna Iyer expressed the need for codification and said that “there is a need of
codified privilege jurisprudence.”34

According to D.C Jain “due to absence of codification many matters are confusing and this
leads to breach of privilege 35.”

Former solicitor general Shree T.R Andhyarujin said that “by not charaterising the degree of
privileges which it is obliged to do ,is encouraging its unrestrained force of rebuffing for
disdain .”36

Justice P.K Balasubramaniam former judge of SC commented that “ the exercise of privilege
by the houses without a classified law put the fundamental rights of citizens under hazarde
and leads to debate and legal adjudication, the courts are compelled to enter the enclosure that
they would typically stay away from .”37

31
Shanti Swaroop Singh, The Press and the Indian Parliament, (2nd edn., Classical
Publishing Company, New Delhi, 2005) 251
32
Report of the Press Commission, Part I,Government of India Press, New Delhi, 1954, p.
529
33
Dr. Ranjana Arora, Parliamentary Privileges in India: Jawaharlal Nehru to Indira Gandhi, (N. M. Tripathi
Private Ltd. Bombay 1984) 101
V. R. Krishna Iyer,‘House Privleges and the Courts’, The Hindu dated 27/11/2003
34

D. C. Jain, ‘Judicial Review of Parliamentary Privileges: Functional Relationship of Courts

35

And Legislatures in India’ JILI [Vol. 9: 1967] 205

36
3 T. R. Andhyarujina, ‘Need for reformulating the law’, The Hindu,
37
Justice P. K. Balsubramanyan, ‘Parliamentary Privilege: Complementary Role of the Institutions’, (2006) 2
SCC (J) 1
19
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION

20
 RESOURCES

BOOKS

1. the law of torts, 25th edition reprint 2009, by Ratanlal & Dheerajlal
2. the law of torts, 10th edition 2007 , by Ramaswamy Iyer
3. Ramaswamy Iyer’s THE LAW OF TORTS
4. law of torts, 22nd edition reprint 2010, by R.K Bangia
5. Winfield and Jolowicz , ON TORTS (12th edition)

ARTICLE

1. Legal service India – An analysis of parliamentary privileges in India, by Jayant Bhatt

2. Privileges of parliament , by Tapanshu Gehlot
3. Parliamentary privileges: complimentary role of institution(2006) 2 SCC (J) , by
Balasubhramaniam.

WEBSITES

1. tort.laws.com/torts
2. http://tort.laws.com/torts
3. Legal-dictionary.the free dictionary.com
4. Http://publications.parliament.uk./pea/
5. www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/parliamentary001.htm
6. www.parl.gc.ca/about/house/compendium /web-content/c_topic_parliamentary
privilege-e.pdf
7. www.lawoctopus.com/academike/parliamentary-privileges/
8. www.improtantindia.com/12240/parliamentary-privileges-and-immunities-in-india-
constitution/

21
22
23
24