Freedom of Speech in Parliament

• 24 Feb 2026

Source: TH

Why in News? 

The Budget Session of Parliament 2026 has raised concerns about Members of Parliament (MPs) freedom of speech, as the expunction of speeches has prompted questions about the safeguards provided under Article 105.

How is the Freedom of Speech of MPs Protected and Regulated?

• Constitutional Protection:
  • Article 105(1) (Freedom of Speech in Parliament): Guarantees MPs the freedom to speak freely in the House and its committees while Parliament is in session and conducting business. 
    • This protection allows MPs to express views without fear, enabling robust debate, scrutiny of the executive, and effective lawmaking. 
    • It is a special parliamentary privilege and operates separately from the general freedom of speech available to citizens under Article 19 (which is subject to specific "reasonable restrictions" (such as public order or morality).
  • Article 105(2) (Immunity from Legal Proceedings): It grants MPs complete immunity from civil or criminal liability for anything said or any vote given in Parliament or its committees. 
    • The protection is absolute in scope, ensuring that courts cannot question or penalise members for statements made during parliamentary proceedings. 
    • This safeguard prevents intimidation through litigation and preserves the independence of legislative deliberations.
  • Extension of Protection to Non-Members: The immunity under Article 105(2) extends to individuals who are constitutionally entitled to participate in parliamentary proceedings, such as the Attorney General of India. 
    • This ensures continuity and openness in debate by protecting all authorised participants from legal repercussions.
  • Article 121: Limits parliamentary speech by prohibiting discussion on the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, except during impeachment proceedings. 
    • This provision balances legislative freedom with judicial independence, ensuring that the judiciary is not subjected to casual or politically motivated criticism within Parliament.
• Regulation Through Rules of Procedure:
  • Expunction: Rule 380 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha gives the Speaker the discretion to expunge any words or expressions used in debate that are considered defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary, or undignified.
  • Sub Judice Matters: Members cannot discuss cases currently being adjudicated in a court of law.
  • Personal Allegations: Making defamatory or incriminatory allegations against any person without prior notice to the Speaker is prohibited.
  • High Authority: Reflecting negatively on the conduct of persons in high constitutional authority is restricted.
  • Fellow Members: Questioning the bona fides (good faith) of fellow members is generally against the rules.
• Internal Checks Against Misuse: The Committee of Privileges examines cases of breach or misuse of parliamentary privilege. It ensures MPs do not abuse immunity to defame or harm individuals who otherwise have limited legal remedies.

Supreme Court (SC) Judgments Regarding the Freedom of Speech of MPs

• Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy (1970): The SC upheld absolute immunity for MPs under Article 105(2). Emphasised that the word “anything” has the widest scope. Reinforced that parliamentary speech is beyond judicial scrutiny.
• P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998): The SC held that MPs are immune from prosecution for bribery if it is directly connected to a vote given in Parliament.
• Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007): SC held that the parliamentary privileges are subject to judicial review if constitutional limits are violated.
• Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023): The SC held that a Minister’s statement is not automatically the Government’s position, and the Government is not liable unless it officially endorses the remarks.
• Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024): The SC overruled the 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment, and held that MPs and MLAs do not have immunity from prosecution for accepting bribes to vote or speak in the House. 
  • It ruled that bribery is a criminal act and is not protected under Article 105(2) or Article 194(2) (grants protection to MLAs).

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What does Article 105 of the Constitution provide?

Article 105 grants MPs freedom of speech in Parliament and immunity from legal proceedings for anything said or any vote given in the House or its committees.

2. Can courts question statements made by MPs in Parliament?

No. Parliamentary speech enjoys immunity under Article 105(2), though criminal acts like bribery are not protected.

3. What is the purpose of expunction in parliamentary proceedings?

Expunction removes defamatory, indecent, or unparliamentary words to maintain decorum while preserving meaningful debate.

4. What role does the Committee of Privileges play?

It examines breaches or misuse of parliamentary privilege and ensures immunity is not abused to harm individuals or undermine legislative integrity.

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQ) 

Prelims 

Q. One of the implications of equality in society is the absence of (2017)

A. Privileges 

B. Restraints 

C. Competition 

D. Ideology 

 Ans: (A) 

---

Mains

Q. The ‘Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and its Members’ as envisaged in Article 105 of the Constitution leave room for a large number of un-codified and un-enumerated privileges to continue. Assess the reasons for the absence of legal codification of the ‘parliamentary privileges.’ How can this problem be addressed? (2014)