WhatsApp Channel Join Now
Telegram Group Join Now

Relevance: GS-II (Polity & Constitution) | Source: The Indian Express

The News: The Supreme Court is deciding a massive clash of power. Members of Parliament (MPs) and state MLAs enjoy “special privileges” to do their jobs without interference. But here is the big question: Can politicians use these special rules to act like judges and jail citizens or journalists who criticize them?

1. The 2003 Journalist Arrests

This whole Supreme Court case goes back to a dramatic showdown in Tamil Nadu in 2003.

  • The Offense: The Hindu newspaper published an editorial heavily criticizing the State Chief Minister and the government for misusing police power against their opponents.
  • The Punishment: The politicians were furious. Instead of filing a case in a normal court, the State Assembly acted as its own judge. They declared the journalists guilty of “insulting” the lawmakers and ordered the police to arrest five journalists and throw them in jail for 15 days.
  • The Rescue: The Supreme Court immediately stepped in, blocked the arrests, and saved the journalists. Now, a massive 7-judge bench is finally setting the permanent rules to stop this kind of political overreach.

2. A History of Extreme Clashes

Politicians and courts have fought over these “special powers” for decades. The most extreme example happened in Uttar Pradesh in 1964.

  • Arresting the Judges: In 1964, the UP Assembly jailed a normal citizen just for handing out pamphlets that criticized an MLA. When two High Court judges gave that citizen bail, the angry politicians ordered the police to arrest the two High Court judges! The Supreme Court had to jump in to remind the politicians that courts still have the power to review these arrests.
  • Shield vs. Sword: Journalists argue that these special powers are meant to be a shield—to protect lawmakers so they can debate freely in the House. They are not meant to be a sword to attack citizens, silence the press, or protect a Chief Minister’s ego.

UPSC Value Box: The Unwritten Rules (Codification)
Articles 105 & 194 These are the specific rules in the Constitution that give special powers and privileges to Parliament (105) and State Assemblies (194).
Why aren’t they written down? Since 1950, politicians have purposely refused to write down exactly what these privileges are (a process called codification). Why? Because if they pass a clear law, the Supreme Court can strike it down if it violates your Fundamental Rights (like freedom of speech). By keeping the rules unwritten, politicians try to avoid court interference.
Sita Soren Case (2024) A huge win for accountability this year. A 7-judge Supreme Court bench ruled that MPs and MLAs cannot claim special privilege or immunity if they take a bribe to give a speech or cast a vote in the House.

Practice MCQ

Q. Consider the following statements regarding the privileges of Parliament and State Legislatures in India:

  1. The Parliament of India has enacted a comprehensive law to formally codify the privileges under Article 105, clearly defining what constitutes a “breach of privilege.”
  2. In the recent Sita Soren (2024) judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers do not enjoy parliamentary immunity from criminal prosecution for accepting bribes.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only     (b) 2 only     (c) Both 1 and 2     (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: (b) 2 only
Hint: Statement 1 is completely incorrect; neither Parliament nor any State Legislature has actually codified its privileges, largely to avoid being checked by the courts over Fundamental Rights. Statement 2 is correct, as the 7-judge bench overturned older rulings to ensure bribery is never protected by privilege.
Ajmal IAS APSC Foundation Course

Recent Posts

Ajmal IAS APSC Foundation BATCH
Ajmal IAS APSC Foundation Course

Start Yours at Ajmal IAS – with Mentorship StrategyDisciplineClarityResults that Drives Success

Your dream deserves this moment — begin it here.