PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES Article 105(2) confers immunity in relation to proceedings in courts.

. It says that no member of parliament is liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any !ote gi!en in parliament or a committee thereof. "he #ord proceedings means any proceeding ci!il criminal or e!en #rit proceedings. $othing said #ithin a house is actionable or %usticiable. "he &uestion #hether a member has contra!ened article 121 #hile spea'ing in the (ouse is one for determination by the presiding officer of the (ouse and not for the court. "he corresponding article for state legislature is article 1)*(2) "he principles underlying article 105(1) and 105(2) can be illustrated by reference to Tej Kiran Jain v. Sanjiva Reddy AIR 1970 SC 1573 : (1970) 2 SCC 272; AIR 1971 De !". "he plaintiffs #ere disciples of +agadguru ,han'aracharya. In -arch 1).) at the /orld (indu 0eligious 1onference held at 2atna ,han'aracharya made certain remar's regarding untouchability. 3n April 2 1).) a discussion too' place in 4o' ,abha in #hich certain derogatory #ords #ere spo'en against ,han'aracharya. (is disciples filed a suit for damages against si5 members of the (ouse. "he (igh 1ourt re%ected the plaints and the plaintiffs approached the ,upreme 1ourt by #ay of appeal. "he ,1 dismissed the appeal. 0eferring to article 105(1) the 1ourt emphasi6ed that #hate!er is said in the 2arliament i.e. during the sitting of the 2arliament and in course of the business of 2arliament is immuni6ed. It is the essence of parliamentary democracy that people7s representati!es should be free to e5press themsel!es #ithout fear of legal conse&uences. "he members are only sub%ect to the discipline of the ,pea'er of the (ouse in the matter. "he courts ha!e no say in the matter and should really ha!e none. In India under Article 105(2) no person is to be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect to publication of any report paper !otes or proceedings by or under the authority of a (ouse of 2arliament. "hus all persons connected #ith the publication of proceedings of a (ouse are protected if the same is made under the authority of the (ouse itself. "he Article does not protect publications made #ithout the authority of the (ouse. "o e5plain the scope of the follo#ing article reference may be made to the ,upreme 1ourt case Dr. Ja#i$% C%andra &%'$% v. (ari Sad%an )*+%erjee AIR 19"1 SC "13 : (19"1) 3 SCR ,!". A member of the state legislature ga!e notice of his intention to as' certain &uestions in the Assembly. "he spea'er disallo#ed such &uestions. $e!ertheless the member published the disallo#ed &uestions in a local %ournal. A go!ernment ser!ant filed a complaint( under section 500 and 501 of the I.2.1 ) against the member as #ell as against the editor printer and publisher of the %ournal that the member concerned had published false and scandalous imputations against him #ith a !ie# of harming his reputation. "he matter ultimately came before the ,upreme 1ourt. "he 1ourt ruled that the said publication did not come #ithin the scope of article 1)*(2) 8 Arts 105 and 1)* are similar in phraseology9 as it #as neither under the authority of the (ouse nor anything said or !ote gi!en by a member of the Assembly. A ne#spaper not being a publication authori6ed by the 4egislature #as not protected if it published a faithful report of a debate in a (ouse containing matter

disparaging to the character of an indi!idual or amounting to contempt of court. 0eference can be made to the case of S*re$% C%andra -anerji v. .*ni# &'a a AIR 1951 Ca 17" #herein a member made a speech in the /.: 4egislati!e Assembly. A ne#spaper published a report of the proceedings of the (ouse including the speech. "he complainant filed a complaint before the chief presidency magistrate against the ne#spaper alleging that the said speech contained matter highly defamatory to him and the ne#spaper by publishing the speech had defamed him. "he 1alcutta (igh 1ourt ruled that the member #ho had made the speech in the (ouse could not be prosecuted for uttering the #ords complained of. :ut as the reports of the said speech #ere not published under the authority of the ,tate Assembly Art. 1)*(;) had no application #hatsoe!er. (o#e!er this state of la# #as found to be unsatisfactory. It #as felt that many ad!antages #ould be accrue to the community if the ne#spapers #ere enabled to publish reports of the proceedings of 2arliament in good faith. Accordingly Article ;.1<A no# enacts that no person shall be liable to any proceedings, ci il or cri!inal, in any co"rt in respect o# the p"blication in a ne$spaper o# a s"bstantially tr"e report o# any proceedings o# either ho"se o# Parlia!ent, or the Legislati e Asse!bly, "nless the p"blication is pro ed to ha e been !ade $ith !alice% A si!ilar i!!"nity is e&tended to broadcast on the air% The protection is !ade only to the ne$spapers and air broadcasts and not to any other type o# p"blication li'e a pa!phlet or a boo'let% It sho"ld be noted that the i!!"nity e&tends to only a (report) o# the proceedings and not an (article) or (co!!ent) on the proceedings% *C.K. Da/%#ary v. 0... &*/#a AIR 1971 SC 1132) "his immunity does not apply during secret sittings of the (ouse or the 4egislati!e Assembly. In the case of ).S.) S%ar1a v. Sin%a AIR 1959 SC 3952 the supreme court has ruled that publication of inaccurate and garbled !ersions of speeches deli!ered in the (ouse or misreporting the proceedings of the (ouse amounts to breach of pri!ilege of the (ouse.