Should legislative privileges in India be codified? Discuss in light of recent instances of privilege being invoked against journalists and satirists.

Article 194(3) says the privileges of a State Legislature are to be "defined by the Legislature by law". Until that law is made, they stay as they were before the 44th Amendment (1978) [2]. No such law has been made in over seven decades. Privilege is now being used against the press and comedians, so codification is needed, though the law must be narrow.

Recent instances against journalists and satirists

• 2003: The Tamil Nadu Assembly called a Hindu editorial on the then CM a "breach of privilege of the entire House" and resolved to arrest its editorial staff. Only a Supreme Court stay stopped the arrests [1].
• 2008: A Rajya Sabha privileges panel found an editor guilty for calling the Deputy Chairman "cowardly" but took no further action [3]. He escaped because the panel chose to be lenient, not because the law protected him.
• 2026: Journalists Seema Chishti and Ajit Anjum, and comedian Kunal Kamra, have applied to intervene before a seven-judge Bench [1]. This shows the risk now covers satire and digital speech too.

Case for codification

• Legal certainty: There is no written list of offences. Privileges still follow House of Commons precedents [4], so a citizen cannot know in advance what counts as a breach.
• Natural justice: The House acts as accuser, judge and punisher in its own cause.
• Fundamental rights: A written law could be tested against the Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions, which would limit the chilling effect on criticism.
• Global practice: Australia's 1987 Act says words are not an offence merely because they are "defamatory or critical of Parliament" [3].

Case against codification

• Legislative autonomy: Presiding Officers argue that codification would hurt the "prestige and sovereignty" of legislatures [4]. The Lok Sabha Privileges Committee (2008) also found "no need for codification" [3].
• Flexibility: Not every future threat to the House's work can be listed in advance.
• Core immunities: Members need protection for what they say and how they vote in the House, and deliberative democracy depends on it [5].

The dispute is really about unchecked discretion, not about whether privilege itself is legitimate. The best course is a narrow code. It should protect the House's functioning rather than its dignity, in line with the functional test in Sita Soren (2024) [5]. It should list specific offences such as obstructing members or tampering with witnesses, and include an Australia-style clause that criticism alone is not a breach [3]. That would reconcile Article 194 with Article 19(1)(a), since both are needed for accountable constitutional democracy.