Can a Member of Parliament be sued for what he says in the House? Almost never. Article 105 grants freedom of speech in Parliament and protects members from court proceedings for what they say or how they vote inside the legislature. It is the constitutional wall that keeps debate free — and the Sita Soren case shows where the wall ends.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament. (2) No member of Parliament 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, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. (3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of Section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
Freedom of Speech in Parliament
- 105(1)Members have freedom of speech in Parliament, subject to the Constitution and Parliament’s own rules.
- 105(2)No member is liable to any court proceedings for anything said or any vote given in Parliament or its committees.
- PublicationOfficial reports, papers, votes or proceedings published by or under the authority of a House are also protected.
- Who is coveredThe protection extends to members and to persons who by the Constitution have the right to speak in Parliament.
- So whatArticle 105 protects the speech; Article 194 does the same for State Legislatures.
Privileges and Their Limits
- 105(3)Other powers, privileges and immunities are to be defined by Parliament by law; until then the pre-1978 privileges continue.
- Not defined yetParliament has not yet enacted a comprehensive privileges law, so the old privileges persist by default.
- Outside conductThe immunity does not cover conduct outside the House — bribery for a vote is outside Article 105’s shield.
- So whatThe classic trap: immunity is about what happens inside the House, not about crime committed outside it.
Privileges in Action
- ContemptHouses can punish breach of privilege or contempt of Parliament, including by reprimand or imprisonment.
- Keshav Singh 1965The Supreme Court held that a House’s power to punish contempt is subject to fundamental rights review.
- So whatPrivilege is a shield for the House, but the courts remain the final guardian of rights.
- Not a licencePrivilege cannot be claimed for conduct that is criminal — the courts have repeatedly drawn this line, most recently in the Sita Soren case.
The Boundaries of Privilege
- Not absoluteFreedom of speech in Parliament is subject to the Constitution and to Parliament’s own rules and standing orders.
- Outside the HouseStatements made outside Parliament, or publications not authorised by the House, fall outside the Article 105 shield.
- Crime is crimeBribery for a vote, or any criminal conduct, is not covered by legislative privilege — the Sita Soren line.
- So whatThe shield is precise: it covers what is said and how one votes inside the House, nothing more.
- So whatThe shield is precise: it covers what is said and how one votes inside the House, nothing more.
Work through a 5-question chain on Article 105, then keep practising with a random Indian Polity question.
The Story of the Sita Soren Case
- The questionCould a legislator claim privilege to escape a bribery prosecution for a vote cast in the House?
- 2019 rulingThe Supreme Court ruled that taking a bribe for a vote is not protected by legislative privilege.
- 2024 reversalA larger bench overruled the 1998 JMM bribery acquittal, holding that bribery for votes is never shielded.
- So whatThe case draws the boundary: speech inside the House is sacred, but crime outside it is not.
- Why it mattersThe 2024 ruling protects the integrity of the vote itself — a bribed vote is a broken privilege, not a protected one.
CDS II 2020: Privileges of Members
- QuestionCDS and other competitive exams ask which statements about the privileges of Members of Parliament are correct.
- WhyThe correct options track Article 105(1)-(2): freedom of speech inside the House and immunity from court proceedings for what is said there.
- LinkSource: CDS II 2020 (see Q74).
NDA 2016: Speech as a Privilege
- QuestionNDA and other competitive exams ask whether a Member’s freedom of speech in Parliament is a parliamentary privilege protected by the Constitution.
- WhyYes — Article 105(1) makes freedom of speech in Parliament a constitutional privilege.
- LinkSource: NDA I 2016 (see Q145).
Privileges in the Headlines
- Why it mattersBreach-of-privilege notices, expulsions and the Sita Soren bribery ruling keep Article 105 in the news.
- So whatEvery privilege debate is a tug-of-war between the House’s immunity and the citizen’s rights.
- DevelopmentFrom cash-for-query allegations to expulsions for misconduct, privilege motions test how far the House shield reaches.
Leave a Reply