Should facilities and protocol for legislators be codified by statute rather than left to executive instructions? Examine.

In October 2026, the Supreme Court ordered West Bengal to give MP Mahua Moitra a room at the Krishnanagar circuit house on a day's notice. The State had been demanding three to four days. The Court also remarked that such disputes should not need an Article 32 petition [1]. The case shows how protocol left to executive instructions invites misuse of discretion. Codification is desirable, but only within limits.

Case for statutory codification

• Certainty: Union-level MP facilities already have a rule base, the Housing and Telephone Facilities (MPs) Rules, 1956 [2]. Rajya Sabha transit housing must be vacated within two weeks [3]. State circuit-house notice periods have no such written limit, and that gap is exactly what was litigated [1].
• Curbs political misuse: When the MP and the State government are rivals, an unwritten notice rule can quietly block constituency work [1].
• Enforceability: The Lok Sabha Committee of Privileges found that DoPT guidelines on officials' dealings with MPs and MLAs are not strictly followed [4]. Statutory backing would make them binding.
• Judicial economy: Clear rules mean fewer room disputes reaching the Supreme Court [1].
• Precedent: A 1957 Karnataka law governs legislators' stays at Karnataka Bhavan, New Delhi [5].

Limits of codification

• Rigidity: Protocol must adjust to security needs, elections and emergencies. Amending a statute is slow.
• Entrenching VIP culture: Writing privileges into law risks turning a convenience for public duty into a status entitlement. The Court tied the preference to the MP being "the representative of that constituency" [1].
• Federalism: Circuit houses are State property, so any law should be a State law, not a uniform Central one.
• Detail still needs rules: Even Karnataka's law leaves rent rates to government orders [5].

Way forward: a hybrid model

• A short State statute setting core entitlements: a fixed, short notice period and priority for the local representative on constituency work.
• Operational detail in published delegated rules.
• Breaches routed first to the Privileges Committee and disciplinary action against the officers responsible [4], then the High Court under Article 226, keeping Article 32 as a last resort.

In short, statute should fix the principle and published rules should handle the detail. Such a calibrated framework would protect a representative's ability to serve voters without creating new privileges. It would also uphold the rule of law and the constitutional ideal of accountable, neutral administration.