Freedom of Speech of MPs

Context

Parliamentary privileges are essential for the democratic functioning of a legislature, ensuring that representatives can discharge their duties without fear of external legal repercussions. In recent years, the balance between an MP's absolute freedom inside the House and the Speaker’s power to expunge remarks has been a subject of significant constitutional debate.

About the News

Article 105 (Parliamentary Privileges): This constitutional provision grants Members of Parliament (MPs) absolute freedom of speech within the House. It ensures that no member is liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament.
State Analogy: A corresponding provision, Article 194, extends similar protections and privileges to Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) in State Legislatures.
Official Records: Remarks made by MPs are entered into the official permanent records of the House, providing them immunity from defamation or civil/criminal suits regarding their speech on the floor.

The Speaker's Power & Rule 380

While the freedom is broad, it is regulated internally to maintain the dignity of the House:

Rule 380 (Expunction): Under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, the Speaker holds the authority to "expunge" words from the record if they are deemed unparliamentary, defamatory, undignified, or indecent.
Constitutional Caution: Legal experts argue that while the Speaker can delete specific derogatory words, arbitrarily suppressing entire paragraphs or deleting substantive portions of an MP’s speech may constitute an infringement of the fundamental protections guaranteed under Article 105.

Constitutional Restrictions (Article 121)

The freedom of speech in Parliament is "absolute" regarding external legal action, but it is subject to specific constitutional limitations:

Conduct of Judges: Article 121 explicitly prohibits MPs from discussing the conduct of any Supreme Court or High Court Judge in the discharge of their duties.
The Exception: Such a discussion is only permissible when a formal motion for the removal (impeachment) of the judge is actively being considered in the House.
Rules of the House: Speech is also subject to the internal rules of procedure, which forbid the use of offensive language or making personal charges against fellow members.

Challenges

Defining "Unparliamentary": The definition of what constitutes "unparliamentary" language is often subjective, leading to allegations of political bias when opposition speeches are heavily edited.
Judicial Review: While courts generally do not interfere in the internal proceedings of Parliament (Article 122), the extent to which "expunction" can be used to silence dissent remains a gray area in constitutional jurisprudence.
Public Access: Expunged remarks are not supposed to be reported by the media; however, in the age of live telecasts and social media, "deleting" speech from the record has become technically challenging.

Way Forward

Objective Guidelines: Developing clearer, bipartisan guidelines for the exercise of Rule 380 to ensure it is used for maintaining decorum rather than curbing political criticism.
Strengthening Ethics: Encouraging self-regulation among MPs to adhere to the highest standards of parliamentary etiquette, reducing the need for Chair intervention.
Codification of Privileges: Periodic debate on whether parliamentary privileges should be formally codified to provide more clarity on the limits of free speech versus the powers of the Chair.

Conclusion

The synergy between Article 105 and Rule 380 represents a delicate balance between absolute freedom and necessary decorum. For a vibrant democracy, it is vital that the "shield" of privilege remains robust, while the "sword" of expunction is used sparingly to protect the sanctity of the institution rather than to stifle legitimate debate.

Freedom of Speech of MPs