Consider the following statements with respect to privileges of members of Parliament. I. Privileges would not be fettered by Art. 19 (1) (a) of Indian Constitution. II. Privileges must be read subject to the Articles 20 - 22 and Art. 32 of the Constitution III. Immunity is available in relation to both Civil and Criminal prosecution IV. Immunity is available in relation to Freedom of Speech even in his/her private or personal capacity How many of the above statement(s) is/are true?
Statement Evaluation
Statement I is TRUE: In the famous M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha (Searchlight case), the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) are general, whereas those of Article 105 are special. Therefore, parliamentary privileges are not fettered or restricted by Article 19(1)(a).
Statement II is TRUE: In the Keshav Singh case (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that while Article 19(1)(a) doesn't restrict privileges, other fundamental rights like Article 20 (protection against conviction), Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), Article 22 (protection against arrest), and Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies) do apply and control parliamentary privileges.
Statement III is FALSE: Members of Parliament only enjoy immunity from arrest in civil cases (40 days before, during, and 40 days after a session under Section 135A of the Civil Procedure Code). No such blanket immunity is available against criminal prosecution or arrest under criminal charges or preventive detention.
Statement IV is FALSE: The immunity regarding freedom of speech is strictly applicable to anything said inside the house or its committees in their official capacity as a representative. It does not extend to statements made in their private or personal capacity outside Parliament.
Conclusion
Out of the four statements, only two (Statements I and II) are correct.
Correct Option
Option 2 (Only 2)
Important Questions from Indian Polity (State PSC)
Who was the first Deputy Prime Minister of India ?
- Which of the following correctly explains the significance of PESA, 1996 in Jharkhand?
Consider the following statements with respect to doctrine of "procedure established by law" as provided in the Constitution of India.
I. It protects against executive action.
II. It protects against legislative action.
III. Article 22 was incorporated to the Constitution as additional safeguards after debate in the Constituent Assembly.
IV. In the Bank Nationalisation Case, the Supreme Court adopted its strict interpretation.
How many of the above statement(s) is/are correct?
- In which Article of Indian Constitution the 'Doctrine of Estoppel' is found ?
- Which one of the following statements is NOT correct in respect of 'Triple Test Formula'?
