Examine the scope of parliamentary privileges with respect to the arrest and detention of legislators. Are present safeguards adequate?

Article 105 gives MPs privileges so that Parliament can work without obstruction [1]. These privileges are not a personal immunity from the law. The October 2026 detention of Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas tests whether the line is drawn correctly. He was dragged to a police van while speaking to the media and later hospitalised [6].

Scope of privilege on arrest and detention

• Civil arrest only: Sec. 135A of the CPC bars the arrest of members under civil process during a session or committee sitting, and for 40 days before and after it [2].
• No shield in criminal or preventive cases: members have no immunity from arrest on a criminal charge or under preventive detention law [3].
• House's right to information: Rajya Sabha Rules 222A–222C require the arresting authority to inform the Chairman at once of the reason and the place of detention, and later of the release. The Chairman then informs the House or publishes it in the Bulletin. Failing to inform can be a breach of privilege [3].
• Residual privileges: Art. 105(3) still relies on House of Commons practice because the privileges have not been codified [1].

Adequacy of safeguards

Strengths

• The rule upholds equality before law, because an MP cannot avoid criminal justice.
• Telling the Chair keeps Parliament aware of a member's absence, and each House judges breaches of its own privileges [3].

Gaps

• Process, not treatment: telling the Chair records that a member was detained, not how they were treated. The alleged assaults inside police vans fall outside this rule [6].
• Gaps in preventive detention: people held in vans for a few hours are often released without a formal arrest. If no record is made, the D.K. Basu safeguards are never triggered: an arrest memo, informing a relative and a medical check [4].
• Weak external accountability: the Police Complaints Authorities ordered in Prakash Singh (2006) remain unevenly set up [5].
• Uncodified privileges make their scope uncertain and open to selective use [1].

Way forward

• Apply the D.K. Basu record-keeping duties to all preventive detention, including people held in vehicles.
• Make Police Complaints Authorities fully independent and give them the resources to work [5].
• Codify privileges narrowly. The Privileges Committee should examine any use of force against a member that was out of proportion to the situation.

Present safeguards protect Parliament's functioning but not the dignity of the person detained. Better custody records and independent police oversight would fix this without giving MPs special immunity. That would serve both the purpose of Art. 105 and the right to dignity under Art. 21.