Parliamentary Privileges vs Fundamental Rights

Can a person found guilty of breach of privilege or

contempt of the house or be imprisoned just on the declaration
of the house or does judiciary has any role in this?

Our Parliaments and Legislative Assemblies have the

constitutional mandate to define their own privileges and
powers. They can determine guilt of breach of
privilege/contempt by whatever manner they see fit, and order
whatever punishment they see fit. The judiciary cannot interfere
with any legislative order that seeks to enforce its privilege.

Articles 105 (3) and 194 (3) grant our Parliament and
Legislative Assemblies absolute power in defining their powers,
privileges and immunities [modelled after UK's House of
Commons]. This is actually a bit of an anomaly, because a
written Constitution usually spells out the powers and privileges
of the Parliament, and allows the judiciary to check the
Legislature from abusing its power.

But for the sake of interim convenience our Constitution

had provided that our Parliament can enjoy all the privileges of
the House of Commons until a law is made spelling out the
exact privileges. No law on this matter has been made yet, so
our Parliament technically continues to enjoy all the powers that
the House of Commons enjoys. The logic behind granting
privileges to the Legislature and the Judiciary is that these
organs should be able to enjoy every right/privilege, which are
required for due execution of their functions. When these
rights/privileges are disregarded or violated, the breach of
privilege can be punished. Some of the rights claimed by the
Parliament/Legislative Assemblies include compelling
attendance of witnesses before Committees, demanding any
papers/records, prohibiting the publication of its proceedings,
excluding strangers from the House etc.

Obviously, when the House employs its privilege to

gag/reprimand/arrest someone, individual rights (including
fundamental ones) is made subordinate to Parliamentary
privilege. On this issue, the Courts have seen lot of cases,
particularly the Searchlight case (1959) and Keshav Singh's case
(1964). Keshav Singh is an interesting case-- this guy Keshav
Singh distributed some pamphlets outside the UP Assembly
which was brought to the attention of the Speaker. The Speaker
deemed the content of the pamphlet to be derogatory of the
house, and got this chap arrested. Singh moved the Allahabad
HC, which granted him a bail. The Speaker then issued
contempt orders to the judges also, asking them to appear before
the Assembly. The Allahabad HC decided to checkmate the
Speaker by ordering his arrest! This sparked off a lot of
litigation, and ultimately led to a Presidential Reference to the
Supreme Court (in 1964). The President sought to clarify
whether Parliamentary Privileges are subject to Fundamental
Rights, and if the courts had any jurisdiction on orders of the
Legislatures.

For full details on what the Allahabad High Court said in

Keshav Singh, you can
readhttp://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/event/CaseConstitution
alConflictMHBeg.pdf. And for full details on the Supreme
Court's response to the Presidential reference,
read http://indiankanoon.org/doc/907052/.

Here's a brief summary of the SC's stand:

1. Our Parliament is not sovereign as the House of Commons.
There is, rather, a balance of constitutional supremacy and
parliamentary sovereignty. Likewise, there must be a
balance between individual rights and parliamentary
privileges.
2. It is acceptable for someone to move the HC/SC when
his/her rights are violated by an order of the Parliament.
The court can apply the principle of harmonious
construction to determine whether a particular
Fundamental Right can be subordinated by the order.
3. Both judiciary and executive derive their status form the
Constitution, and should work in harmony rather than
antimony. It is unconstitutional to hold a judge in contempt
of the Parliament.
4. The power to punish for contempt must always be
exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection.