Protecting Freedom of Speech for MPs: Constitutional Rights vs. Rules
Balancing parliamentary rules with MPs' constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Editorial Analysis
The author argues that while the freedom of speech for MPs is subject to the rules of the Houses, these rules should not override constitutional rights. He emphasizes that restrictions, such as expunging portions of speeches, may infringe upon MPs' rights and undermine the functioning of the legislature. He advocates for a balanced approach where parliamentary rules respect the constitutional guarantee of free speech.
Main Arguments:
- The freedom of speech of MPs is guaranteed by Article 105 of the Constitution, but it is subject to the rules of the Houses. The author contends that the rules should not override constitutional rights.
- Restrictions on citizens' rights, including the freedom of speech of MPs, should not eclipse those rights. The Supreme Court has clarified this principle on many occasions.
- Expunging portions of an MP's speech can infringe upon their rights under Article 105, especially if it makes the speech incoherent. While Rule 380 allows the Speaker to expunge unparliamentary or offensive words, it should not be applied to entire sentences or paragraphs.
- Free, frank, and fearless expression of members' views is essential for the effective functioning of the legislature. Mindless application of the expunction rule stifles this freedom.
- Parliamentary conduct and practices have a normative base, and after independence, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru reset the relationship between the government and Parliament, emphasizing the importance of giving correct and full information to Parliament and listening to the Opposition.
- Preventing the Leader of the Opposition from speaking in the House and attempting to disqualify them for life are tragic developments that indicate an irretrievable breakdown of the relationship between the government and the Opposition.
Counter Arguments:
- Rule 380 permits the Speaker to expunge words if they are unparliamentary, defamatory, indecent, or undignified.
Conclusion
Policy Implications
The discussion revolves around the freedom of speech for Members of Parliament (MPs) under Article 105 of the Constitution. While this freedom is subject to the rules of the Houses, these rules should not override constitutional rights. Concerns are raised that restrictions imposed on MPs' speech, such as expunging portions of their remarks, may infringe upon their rights. The Supreme Court has clarified that restrictions on citizens' rights should not eclipse those rights.
Erskine May's views on parliamentary privilege and Jawaharlal Nehru's approach to engaging with the Opposition are referenced. The current situation involves a leader of the Opposition allegedly being prevented from speaking freely and facing potential disqualification, which is viewed as a breakdown in the relationship between the government and the Opposition.
This issue is relevant to understanding the balance between parliamentary procedure and fundamental rights in India, particularly concerning the role of the Opposition. It is pertinent to UPSC exams, especially in the Polity & Governance sections (GS Paper II).
Key Facts
Article 105 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech for MPs.
The freedom of speech is subject to the rules of the Houses.
The Supreme Court has clarified that restrictions on rights should not eclipse those rights.
Rule 380 permits the Speaker to expunge unparliamentary words.
Jawaharlal Nehru emphasized giving correct information to Parliament and listening to the Opposition.
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Parliament and State Legislatures: structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges and issues arising out of these.
Understanding the constitutional provisions related to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19) and parliamentary privileges (Article 105).
Potential Mains question: Analyze the balance between parliamentary privileges and the fundamental rights of Members of Parliament. How can this balance be maintained to ensure effective functioning of the legislature?
In Simple Words
Think of Parliament as a place where our representatives speak for us. The Constitution gives them the right to speak freely, but there are some rules to keep things civil. The problem is when those rules are used to silence them or delete what they say, making it hard for them to do their job.
India Angle
In India, this affects how our MPs can raise issues in Parliament. If their voices are stifled, it means the concerns of the people they represent might not be heard properly. This can impact everything from local infrastructure projects to national policies.
For Instance
Imagine your local councilor isn't allowed to speak about a problem in your neighborhood during a meeting. If their concerns are silenced, the issue might never get resolved, affecting your daily life.
It matters because if our representatives can't speak freely, our voices aren't being heard in the government. It's about making sure our democracy works as it should.
Free speech in Parliament means your voice gets heard.
The article discusses the freedom of speech of Members of Parliament (MPs) under Article 105 of the Constitution, emphasizing that while this freedom is subject to the rules of the Houses, these rules should not override constitutional rights. It highlights concerns that restrictions imposed on MPs' speech, such as expunging portions of their remarks, may infringe upon their rights. The Supreme Court has clarified that restrictions on citizens' rights should not eclipse those rights.
The article references Erskine May's views on parliamentary privilege and Jawaharlal Nehru's approach to engaging with the Opposition. It also mentions the current situation where a leader of the Opposition is allegedly being prevented from speaking freely and facing potential disqualification, which the author sees as a breakdown in the relationship between the government and the Opposition.
Expert Analysis
The freedom of speech for Members of Parliament (MPs) is a critical aspect of Indian democracy, balancing parliamentary procedure with constitutional rights. To fully understand the nuances of this issue, several key concepts need to be examined.
The first key concept is Article 105 of the Constitution of India. This article specifically deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament and its members. Article 105(1) grants freedom of speech in Parliament, stating that MPs cannot be held liable in any court for anything said or any vote given in Parliament or any committee thereof. However, this freedom is not absolute. It is subject to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, as stated in Article 105(2). The current debate arises because restrictions, such as expunging remarks, are seen by some as infringing upon this constitutionally guaranteed freedom, potentially undermining the role of the Opposition.
Another important concept is Parliamentary Privilege. These are special rights and immunities extended to Parliament, its committees, and its members. The purpose is to ensure that they can perform their functions without fear of obstruction or intimidation. Erskine May, a renowned authority on parliamentary practice, has extensively written on these privileges. However, these privileges are not meant to be above the Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that while parliamentary privilege is essential, it cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens, including MPs, under Article 19. The concern is whether the application of parliamentary rules, such as expunging remarks, is disproportionately restricting the freedom of speech of MPs, thereby upsetting this balance.
Finally, the concept of Reasonable Restrictions, as enshrined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, is crucial. While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens, Article 19(2) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that any restriction on fundamental rights must be reasonable, proportionate, and necessary. The question is whether the restrictions imposed on MPs' speech within Parliament meet these criteria, or whether they are excessive and impinge upon their fundamental right to express their views freely.
For UPSC aspirants, understanding the interplay between Article 105, parliamentary privileges, and the concept of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) is essential. Questions in both Prelims and Mains can be framed to test the candidate's understanding of these constitutional provisions and their application in the context of parliamentary proceedings and the rights of MPs. Specifically, Mains questions may require an analytical discussion on balancing parliamentary procedure with the fundamental rights of parliamentarians.
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why is the freedom of speech for MPs being debated now?
The debate is triggered by concerns that restrictions imposed on MPs' speech, such as expunging portions of their remarks, may infringe upon their constitutional rights. Specifically, there are concerns that a leader of the Opposition is allegedly being prevented from speaking freely and facing potential disqualification, leading to a breakdown in the relationship between the government and the opposition.
2. What's the difference between the freedom of speech guaranteed to ordinary citizens under Article 19(1)(a) and that guaranteed to MPs under Article 105?
Both Article 19(1)(a) and Article 105 guarantee freedom of speech. However, Article 105 provides specific parliamentary privilege to MPs, subject to the rules of the Houses. Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions listed in Article 19(2), which includes aspects like public order, decency, and morality. The freedom under Article 105 is specifically related to speech within the Parliament.
3. How can restrictions on MPs' speech, like expunging remarks, be justified constitutionally?
Restrictions on MPs' speech are justified by the rules of the Houses, which are framed under the authority granted by the Constitution. Rule 380 permits the Speaker to expunge unparliamentary words. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that such restrictions should not eclipse the fundamental right to freedom of speech. The key is balancing parliamentary procedure with constitutional rights.
4. What is the likely Prelims question related to Article 105 and Parliamentary privileges?
UPSC might ask about the scope of Article 105, specifically whether the freedom of speech it guarantees is absolute or subject to certain conditions. A likely distractor would be to present it as an absolute freedom, without mentioning the rules of the Houses. examTip: Remember that Article 105 freedom is subject to the rules of the Houses.
Exam Tip
Remember that Article 105 freedom is subject to the rules of the Houses.
5. How would you structure a 250-word Mains answer on the topic of 'Balancing Parliamentary Rules and Freedom of Speech'?
Begin by referencing Article 105 and its guarantee of freedom of speech for MPs. Then, discuss how this freedom is subject to the rules of the Houses. Provide examples of recent instances where restrictions were imposed. Discuss the Supreme Court's view that restrictions should not eclipse rights. Conclude by emphasizing the need for a balance to maintain both parliamentary decorum and democratic principles.
6. What is the significance of Erskine May's views in this context?
Erskine May's views are significant because they are a respected authority on parliamentary practice and procedure. Referencing his views adds weight to arguments about the interpretation and application of parliamentary privilege and the balance between freedom of speech and the need for order in parliamentary debates.
7. How does this situation reflect on the health of Indian democracy?
The alleged prevention of a leader of the Opposition from speaking freely and facing potential disqualification raises concerns about the health of Indian democracy. It suggests a potential breakdown in the relationship between the government and the opposition, which is crucial for a functioning democracy. A healthy democracy requires open dialogue and respect for dissenting voices.
8. What should aspirants watch for in the coming months regarding this issue?
Aspirants should monitor any further developments regarding the restrictions on MPs' speech, any legal challenges to these restrictions, and the stance taken by the Speaker of the House. Also, keep an eye on parliamentary debates and discussions related to Article 105 and parliamentary privileges.
9. How did Jawaharlal Nehru approach engaging with the Opposition, and why is it relevant now?
Jawaharlal Nehru emphasized giving correct information to Parliament and listening to the Opposition. This approach is relevant now because it highlights the importance of engaging with dissenting voices and maintaining open communication in a democracy. His example serves as a reminder of the need for inclusivity and respect for diverse perspectives in parliamentary proceedings.
10. What is the government's likely position on restricting MPs' speech, and what arguments might they use to defend it?
The government is likely to argue that restrictions on MPs' speech are necessary to maintain order and decorum in Parliament. They might invoke the rules of the Houses and the Speaker's authority to regulate proceedings. They could also argue that certain remarks are unparliamentary, defamatory, or a threat to national security, thus justifying their expungement or other restrictions.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding Article 105 of the Constitution of India: 1. It explicitly mentions 'freedom of the press' as a fundamental right. 2. It provides immunity to Members of Parliament (MPs) from any court proceedings for their statements made in the House. 3. The freedoms guaranteed under Article 105 are absolute and not subject to any restrictions. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is INCORRECT: Article 105 does not explicitly mention 'freedom of the press'. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 19(1)(a) to include freedom of the press. Statement 2 is CORRECT: Article 105(2) provides immunity to MPs from any court proceedings for their statements made in the House. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: The freedoms guaranteed under Article 105 are subject to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament.
Source Articles
Protecting the freedom of speech of MPs - The Hindu
‘Important to protect right to freedom of speech’ - The Hindu
Freedom in authority: The Hindu Editorial on the right to free speech - The Hindu
Courts must protect, not regulate free speech - The Hindu
Is the freedom of speech absolute? - The Hindu
About the Author
Ritu SinghEngineer & Current Affairs Analyst
Ritu Singh writes about Polity & Governance at GKSolver, breaking down complex developments into clear, exam-relevant analysis.
View all articles →