MAINS 2014
GS2
12.5 marks
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 uncodified and unenumerated privileges to continue. Assess the reasons for the absence of legal codification of parliamentary privileges. How can this problem be addressed?
WRITE IN
9 min
200 words
What the examiner wants
Assess why parliamentary privileges under Art 105 remain uncodified and suggest how to address it.
Assess + SuggestWeigh the evidence and say how far the claim holds. Propose specific, workable measures.
Demand-wise check
- 1Present position: Art 105(1), (2) explicit; Art 105(3) left others to be defined by law; until then those of House of Commons (reference removed by 44th Amendment 1978, but position unchanged)≈35 words
- 2Reasons for non-codification: fear that a law would be subject to judicial review and Fundamental Rights (Art 13); flexibility to deal with new situations; legislature as judge of its own privileges≈35 words
- 3Problems: uncertainty, conflict with press freedom and citizens' rights, misuse against critics≈35 words
- 4Solutions: codifying law with clear list and procedure, judicial review on limited grounds, ethics committees, model of Australia (Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987)≈35 words
Open in about 30 words and close in about 30.
Answer plan
Constitutional positionReasons for not codifyingProblemsWays forwardConclusion
Where marks usually go
- Explaining privileges in general without assessing the reasons
- No case law on conflict between privilege and rights
Draw this
- Table: argument for codification vs against
Value addition
- CaseKeshav Singh case (Special Reference No. 1 of 1964): courts can examine legislative privilege where fundamental rights are affected.Supreme Court, 1964
- CaseSita Soren v Union of India (2024): seven judges overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998), holding that bribery by legislators is not protected by Art 105/194.Supreme Court, 2024
- CaseRaja Ram Pal (2007): expulsion of MPs for cash-for-query upheld, but privilege actions are subject to judicial review.Supreme Court, 2007
Mapped topper copies
Reviewed public-source references related to this PYQ. Same-syllabus references are labelled separately.
- Alfred Thomas · Page 7 ↗Reviewed PYQ reference
- Abhishek Singh · Page 9 ↗Reviewed PYQ reference
- Aditya Srivastava · AIR 1 · Page 29 ↗Same syllabus reference
- Akash Kumar · AIR 101 · Page 7 ↗Same syllabus reference
Links open original public sources. MainsBuddy does not host these answer sheets.
Next: plan for one minute, write it in 9 minutes, then get it checked.