Parliamentary privileges: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Important rulings
i) Breach of privacy; ii) remarks against MPs
Ambika Pandit, July 10, 2019: The Times of India
Breach of privilege only if unauthorised collection of call records, phone-tapping obstructs official duty: Panel
NEW DELHI:The privileges committee of Rajya Sabha, led by deputy chairman Harivansh, has held that while unauthorised collection of call data records (CDR), tapping of phones, hacking of mobiles and emails of an MP is punishable under criminal law on the ground of breach of privacy, the offence would tantamount to breach of privilege only if it hinders or obstructs the victim’s functioning as a lawmaker.
The observations and recommendations follow reconsideration of a previous report of the committee that looked into the complaint of senior BJP leader and Rajya Sabha MP and then leader of opposition Arun Jaitley. It is observed that there was no breach of privilege of Jaitley or of the House in that matter. The committee asserted that there was definitely a breach of right to privacy and directed the Delhi police through the ministry of home affairs to pursue with sincerity the criminal cases filed in the matter so that the guilty could be punished and inform the committee of the outcome of the judicial proceedings.
A notice of breach of privilege dated February 27, 2013 was given by some members of Rajya Sabha on the alleged monitoring and surveillance of mobile phones of then leader of opposition Arun Jaitley by Delhi Police personnel and some other individuals.
The privileges committee in a separate report “strongly condemned” remarks made by Sadhvi Prachi, head of a religious organisation, against MPs who criticised the hanging of terrorist Yakub Menon. Some MPs had moved breach of privilege notices in August 2015 over her remarks to some news channels where she allegedly stated that there were one or two terrorists in Parliament. Even though Sadhvi Prachi in her written statement tendered an unconditional apology, the committee was not satisfied with her oral reply and hence opined that “her statement was unfair, had contemptuous undertones and also a personal attack on individual MPs even though she did not name any member”.
In another report involving a notice by CPM leader Sitaram Yechury when he was MP, the committee saw no case for breach of privilege against the then HRD minister Smriti Irani. Yechury had alleged that due to allegations and calumny spread against him in the House while he was participating in a discussion on the situation in central institutions of higher education with specific reference to Jawaharlal Nehru University and University of Hyderabad, he was receiving phone calls and messages full of profanity, obscenity and threats to his life. According to the committee, his notice primarily seemed to be against Irani whom he had accused of making allegations on the basis of some of his remarks purportedly denigrating Goddess 'Durga'. The discussion in RS happened on February, 26, 2016.
The Committee has observed that the then HRD minister had only asked for a clarification from him. In the opinion of the panel, she was not commenting, imputing motives or putting allegations on Yechury, rather she was asking whether Yechury, through his remarks, meant to justify the Mahisasur Divas which allegedly denigrated Goddess 'Durga'.
The Committee, however, held persons involved in sending threat messages to Yechury guilty of breach of privilege and issued a warning. It directed the Delhi police to report on the status of criminal cases and investigations within 30 days.
Immunity from arrest in civil/ criminal matters
Swati Mathur, August 25, 2021: The Times of India
A Union minister enjoys no immunity from arrest in criminal matters, according to former Lok Sabha secretary general PDT Achary. He told TOI that while Union ministers and members of Parliament enjoy immunity from arrest in the case of civil matters and cannot be arrested 40 days before, during, or 40 days after a Parliament session, but there is “nothing in the rule book” that prevents a minister’s arrest in a criminal matter.
“The Rule is that the presiding officer of the House, of which the arrested person is a member, must be informed upon his arrest. This information is then notified in the Parliament bulletin if the House is not in session, or informed to the House, if it is in session,” Achary said.
The only exception to the rule is when a member or minister has to be arrested from the premises of Parliament, in which case, the permission of the chair must be sought, he said.
Under the Constitution, immunity from arrest in both civil and criminal matters extends only to the President and governors, who cannot be arrested even in criminal matters while they are in office. Any action, even in criminal matters, may only be initiated after they demit office.
Narayan Rane is the first Union minister to be arrested in nearly 20 years and the third to be arrested by state police. In June 2001, Murasoli Maran and TR Baalu, both Union ministers at the time, were arrested by the Tamil Nadu police following the arrest of then TN chief minister Karunanidhi in connection with a Rs 12 crore ‘flyover scam’.
Maran and Baalu were released on bail the following day after then defence minister George Fernandes had visited Chennai.
Rane was arrested by police in Mumbai in connection with certain objectionable remarks he had made against Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray.
