Which of the following descriptions with regard to Parliamentary Privilege for Members of the Parliament of India is/are correct? 1. The Speaker is empowered to refer suo moto any question of privilege for investigation 2. A question of privilege is accorded priority over other items in the List of Business 3. The privilege extends to freedom from preventive arrest or detention Select the answer using the code given below:

Correct — C, 1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is the text of Rule 227 of the Lok Sabha rules almost word for word: notwithstanding anything else in the rules, the Speaker may refer any question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation or report. That power is deliberately independent of the ordinary route in Rules 222 to 226, where a member seeks the Speaker's consent and the House grants leave, so the Speaker can act without waiting for a member to move — which is what 'suo moto' captures. The Rajya Sabha's rule 203 gives the Chairman the identical power. Statement 2 is also right. Direction 2 issued by the Speaker fixes the relative precedence of the classes of business, and questions involving a breach of privilege stand seventh in that order, immediately after Question Hour and leave to move adjournment motions, and well ahead of papers to be laid, ministerial statements, calling-attention notices, resolutions and Bills. The Rajya Sabha states the same thing directly, its rule 190(1) requiring the Chair to call the member 'after the questions and before the list of business is entered upon'. Statement 3 is the one that fails. Freedom from arrest as a parliamentary privilege has never covered criminal process or preventive detention; it is confined to civil causes, and the Code of Civil Procedure carries the exemption from arrest and detention under civil process in Section 135A. The Supreme Court settled the point in K. Anandan Nambiar, holding that the privilege of freedom from arrest is limited to civil causes and has never been allowed to interfere with the administration of criminal justice, so that against a valid detention order a member of a legislature stands exactly where any other citizen stands.

• (a)1 only — Accepts the Speaker's power to act on his own motion but wrongly rejects the precedence of a privilege question, which the Speaker's own Direction 2 places seventh in the order of business, ahead of nearly everything else on the day's list.
• (b)2 and 3 only — Keeps the false third statement and throws away the true first one. Rule 227 gives the Speaker exactly the power described, and there is no privilege against preventive detention.
• (d)1, 2 and 3 — The all-of-them trap. It fails on statement 3 alone: freedom from arrest is a civil-process privilege only, and the Supreme Court has held that a legislator can claim no special status against a valid detention order.

Parliamentary privilege in India rests on Article 105 for Parliament and Article 194 for the State legislatures. Two privileges are individual and settled — freedom of speech in the House, and freedom from arrest under civil process while the House is meeting and for a period on either side of the session, carried in Section 135A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The rest are collective privileges of the House, and the machinery for enforcing them sits in Rules 222 to 228 of the Lok Sabha rules: a member raises a question of privilege with the Speaker's consent, the House may decide it or send it to the Committee of Privileges, and Rule 227 lets the Speaker send it there directly.

This item is a good example of a statements question where two are procedural and one is substantive, and the substantive one is the one to attack first. Statements 1 and 2 both describe how the House handles a privilege complaint, and both are simply what the rule book says. Statement 3 makes a claim about the scope of the privilege itself, and it overreaches in a way examiners like: it takes a real privilege, freedom from arrest, and quietly extends it from civil process to preventive detention. Test any 'immunity' claim by asking what the privilege was historically for. Freedom from arrest grew up in England to stop members being jailed in debt suits and so kept out of the House; it was never a shield against the criminal law, and the Supreme Court said as much when two sitting members detained under a preventive-detention law argued otherwise. The same trap has been set before on this exam — CDS (II) 2020 offered 'immunity is available in relation to both civil and criminal prosecution' as a statement, and the official key rejected it.

• Lok Sabha Rule 227 lets the Speaker refer any question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation or report, notwithstanding anything else in the rules; Rajya Sabha rule 203 is its twin.
• Direction 2 issued by the Speaker places 'Questions involving a breach of privilege' seventh in the relative precedence of classes of business, after Questions and after leave to move adjournment motions.
• Rajya Sabha rule 190(1) requires the Chairman to call the member raising a question of privilege 'after the questions and before the list of business is entered upon'.
• Freedom from arrest is confined to civil process; Section 135A of the Code of Civil Procedure carries the exemption for members of legislative bodies.
• K. Anandan Nambiar v. Chief Secretary, Government of Madras (Supreme Court, 1965) held that against a valid detention order a Member of Parliament 'can claim no special status higher than that of an ordinary citizen'.
• Lok Sabha Rule 313 has the Speaker nominate a Committee of Privileges of not more than fifteen members; the Rajya Sabha committee has ten, nominated by the Chairman.

• Stretching freedom from arrest beyond civil process. It has never covered criminal cases or preventive detention.
• Assuming a member must move before the Committee of Privileges can be seized of a matter; Rule 227 lets the Speaker refer it directly.
• Confusing a privilege motion with a censure or no-confidence motion; a privilege question is about the standing of the House, not the survival of the Government.

Usually as a set of statements mixing one true procedural rule with one overstated immunity, or as a direct question on which article confers privileges and on whether they have been codified.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, who may refer a question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges notwithstanding anything else contained in those rules?

  • (a)The Prime Minister
  • (b)The Speaker
  • (c)The Leader of the Opposition
  • (d)The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs

  Answer(b) The Speaker — Rule 227 empowers the Speaker to refer any question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation or report.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The freedom from arrest enjoyed by a Member of Parliament in India extends to which one of the following?

  • (a)Arrest in a criminal case
  • (b)Detention under a preventive detention law
  • (c)Arrest and detention under civil process
  • (d)All arrests while Parliament is in session

  Answer(c) Arrest and detention under civil process — the privilege is limited to civil causes and does not touch criminal proceedings or preventive detention.