Parliament sovereignty-

Article 105+ 361A- Parliamentary privileges

1. Freedom of speech- Sir John Eliot Case- Seditious speech in parliament,
convicted , the word spoken in parliament can only be judged in parliament.
Article 121 Limitation in freedom of speech of parliament.
2. Tej Kiran Jain v. Sanjeeva Reddy (1970)- Whatever said in parliament is
immune from any kind of proceeding in any court.
3. PV Narsimha Rao v. CBI –
4. In re article 143 , Keshav Singh (1965)- Article 19(1) v Privileges –
Privileges will prevail , Article 21 v Privileges- 21 will prevail.
5. MSM Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha (Searchlight case) (1959)-
6. Raja Rampal v. Hon Speaker Lok Sabha (2007)- Cash v Query
7. Alaga Puram R Mohan Raj v. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (2016SC)-
Court held that freedom of speech guaranteed to legislators is merely a
constitutional right and cant be equated with the fundamental rights of
freedom of speech embodied in article 19(1)(a).
Para 18- Flows from 4 main factors
Fundamental rights under article 19(1)(a) inheres in every citizen the
constitutional right under 194 and 105 only inheres in the legislators, while
the former is alienable the latter only applies btn the tenure of legislature in
the assembly or parliament, while the geographical scope is not
circumscribed by the constitution the latter only applies within the confines
of legislative bodies, while the former is subject to reasonable restrictions
under article 19(2) the latter is subject to rules of legislative body and
constitutionally imposed restrictions under article 121 or 211.
8. Markandey Katju v. Lok Sabha (2017)- FB Post about Gandhi Subash
Chandra Bose. Parliament has power to pass resolutions condemning any
adverse remarks against historically respected personalities made by a
stranger / non member in public domain for consumption of general public,
without making any reference in the resolutions about conduct or character
of maker of remarks article 19(1)(a) which recognises freedom to publicly
express dissenting opinion as well not affected by such resolutions made
purely in the form of declaration of purely in the opinion of the house .
9. Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India- The court held that free speech within
parliament is crucial fo)r democratic governance it is through the fearless
expression of the views that parliamentarian pursue their commitments to
those who elect them, the power of speech exacts democratic accountability
from elected government, the free flow of dialogue ensures that in framing
 legislations and overseeing government policies, parliament reflects the
diverse views of the electorates with an elected institution represents.
10.
Right of publication of its proceedings-
11.Stock dale v. Hansard (1839)
12.Surendra v. Nava Krishan (1958)-
13.Wason v. Walter
14.PV Narsimha Rao v. State through CBI (1998)
15.MSM Sharma v. S K Sinha (1959)-

Privileges and Fundamental Rights

16.GunaPati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafeesul Hasan (1954)- Fundamental rights
will prevail over parliamentary privileges.
17.MSM Sharma v. S K Sinha (1959)- Privileges will prevail over fundamental
rights.
Privileges and Judiciary
18. In re article 143, Keshav Singh (1965)- Article 19(1) v Privileges –
Privileges will prevail , Article 21 v Privileges- 21 will prevail. (UP LA
Assembly speaker v. Judges of Allahabad High Court).
19.Whether the legislature is sole and exclusive judge of its privileges and
whether it is competent to punish a person for its contempt taking place
outside the legislature, whether the high court who entertained the petition of
habeus corpus challenging the validity of detention of a person by LA has
committed contempt of house.
SC Held that the two judges are not guilty of contempt because judicial
review power was being exercised it is their duty.
20.Raja Rampal v. Hon Speaker Lok Sabha (2007)- Cash for Query
21.