Should India codify parliamentary and legislative privileges? Discuss the arguments for and against.

Under Articles 105(3) and 194(3), Parliament and State Legislatures may define their privileges "by law". Until they do, privileges follow the British House of Commons as it stood in 1950 [1]. No such law has been passed in over seven decades [1]. In October 2026 the Supreme Court disposed of the Tamil Nadu Assembly–The Hindu privilege reference without deciding the questions of law [3], so the codification debate is live again.

Arguments for codification

• Constitutional intent: Dr. Rajendra Prasad said House of Commons practice would apply only "until Parliament has undertaken the legislation" [2].
• Legal certainty: The Lok Sabha Secretariat admits it is "not possible to enumerate exhaustively" every act that counts as contempt [1]. Citizens learn where the line is only after they cross it.
• Press freedom: "Writings reflecting on the House" count as contempt, and the press has long asked for codification [1]. The 2003 resolution to arrest editors of The Hindu shows how this chills journalism [3].
• Judge in its own cause: Courts have recognised the House as the "sole authority" to decide breach (M.S.M. Sharma, 1959) [1]. A statute, by contrast, could be tested against Part III rights.
• Global model: Australia's Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1987 caps penalties and abolishes contempt by defamation [2].

Arguments against codification

• Sovereignty and prestige: The Presiding Officers' "dominant view" is that codification would harm legislatures' prestige with no benefit to the press, and is "neither necessary nor desirable" [1].
• Flexibility: A House must deal with new forms of obstruction, and a fixed list may miss them.
• Rare misuse: In 2008 the Lok Sabha Committee of Privileges noted that it had recommended punishment in only five cases since its inception [2].
• Judicial intrusion: Statutory privileges could become open to court challenge, which weakens the Article 122 bar on courts examining proceedings [1].
• UK experience: A 1999 UK joint committee recommended legislation, but Britain has not enacted it [2].

Way forward

Both sides have merit, and narrow codification is a workable middle path. Members' core immunities under Articles 105(1)–(2) should stay as they are. A law should define the offences and penalties that apply to non-members, especially the press. Accused persons should get notice and a hearing before the Committee of Privileges, along the lines of the Australian model. This would complete the Constitution's design, protect Article 19(1)(a), and strengthen legislatures' authority rather than weaken it.