Furthermore, the court underlined in Raja Ram Pal (2007) that even parliamentary privileges are not free from examination, especially when they compromise democratic accountability or fundamental rights.Parliament is, therefore, a creature of the Constitution under Article 79 and subject to its rigours.As outlined earlier, Article 105(1) gives MPs the freedom of expression inside parliament, subject to certain caveats. This is a fundamental and inviolable constitutional right. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, promulgated under Article 118, only control everyday proceedings. At best, these rules are subordinate laws, if not bye-laws, rather than constitutional mandates. Therefore, Article 105(1)’s rights cannot be substantially constrained through procedural guidelines.In constitutional hierarchy, Article 105’s clauses 1 and 3 have a better normative value. They have a direct constitutional provenance and form a part of the fundamental text passed by the Constituent Assembly, unlike parliamentary regulations promulgated under Article 118, whose remit is solely limited to conduct of business. Can procedural discretion trump legislative freedom provided by the Constitution? The answer is an obvious non sequitur.The Supreme Court highlighted in Special Reference No 1 of 1964 that Article 105(3)’s powers have to be read in line with Articles 21 and 32. Renowned constitutional expert H M Seervai also underlined that rules made under Article 118 are procedural and cannot substantially define the scope of rights or privileges, unless authorised by the Constitution.
Source link
