UPSC Prelims 2025 Q59: Governor Immunity & Legislative Privilege
With reference to the Indian polity, consider the following statements:
I. The Governor of a State is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his/her office.
II. No criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the Governor during his/her term of office.
III. Members of a State Legislature are not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said within the House.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- I and II only
- II and III only
- I and III only
- I, II and III
Answer: (d) I, II and III
Statement-wise explanation
- I: correct — This is Article 361(1) almost word for word. The Governor 'shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office'. The immunity covers the Governor personally. It does not stop anyone from bringing proceedings against the State Government, and courts can still examine whether the Governor's actions are valid (Rameshwar Prasad, 2006).
- II: correct — Article 361(2) says no criminal proceedings 'whatsoever shall be instituted or continued' against the President or a Governor in any court during the term of office. Article 361(3) adds that no court can issue a process for their arrest or imprisonment during the term. The protection ends when the term ends. In July 2024 the Supreme Court agreed to examine whether this clause also bars a police investigation.
- III: correct — Article 194(2) says no member of a State Legislature is liable to any proceedings in any court for anything said or any vote given in the Legislature or any of its committees. It mirrors Article 105(2) for Members of Parliament. The statement leaves out votes and committees, but what it does say is accurate.
How to eliminate
Option logic does not help much here. Every option contains at least two statements, and each statement appears in some option. You have to judge each one. All three statements closely paraphrase constitutional text: Article 361(1), Article 361(2) and Article 194(2). Words like 'not answerable to any court' and 'no criminal proceedings' sound absolute and look like traps, but here the Constitution itself uses that absolute wording. The real trap is Statement I. Many aspirants know that courts review Governors' decisions, for example on dissolving an Assembly or delaying assent to Bills, and so they reject it. Remember the distinction: the Governor personally cannot be made to answer in court, but the Governor's actions can still be judicially reviewed. Statement III is easy if you remember that MPs have freedom of speech in Parliament under Article 105, and States have a mirror provision. The fact to remember: Article 361 gives the President and Governors personal immunity, and Article 194 gives legislators immunity for speech and votes in the House.
Know more
Two kinds of constitutional immunity
The Constitution protects two sets of office-holders from courts, for different reasons. The President and Governors get personal immunity so the head of the executive can work without lawsuits (Article 361). Legislators get functional immunity so debate in the House is free (Articles 105 for Parliament, 194 for States).
| Clause | Protection | Limits |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 361(1) | Not answerable to any court for official powers and duties | President's conduct can be reviewed in impeachment (Art. 61); proceedings against the Government remain open |
| Art. 361(2) | No criminal proceedings started or continued during the term | Ends with the term |
| Art. 361(3) | No arrest or imprisonment process during the term | Ends with the term |
| Art. 361(4) | Civil suits for personal acts need two months' written notice | Personal-capacity civil cases are allowed |
| Art. 194(2) | MLAs not liable in any court for anything said or any vote given in the Legislature or its committees | Covers only speech and votes in the House; bribery is not protected (Sita Soren, 2024) |
Key cases
- Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): the Governor cannot be called to answer in court, but the Governor's decisions can be challenged, including on grounds of mala fides.
- Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024): a seven-judge bench overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998). It held that an MP or MLA who takes a bribe to speak or vote has no immunity under Articles 105 or 194.
Exam tip: Article 194(1) gives freedom of speech 'subject to' the Constitution and House rules. Article 194(4) extends the same privileges to non-members with a right to speak in the House, such as the Advocate General.
In the news
Both provisions were in the news in 2024. In March 2024, the Sita Soren verdict narrowed Article 194(2) immunity for legislators who take bribes. In July 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to examine the scope of Governors' immunity under Article 361 on a petition linked to a complaint against the West Bengal Governor.
NCERT Concepts to Revise
- Immunity of the President and Governors: Statements I and II depend on the exact scope of Article 361's protection for Governors, both during the term and for official acts.
- Rameshwar Prasad case: This case explains the difference between a Governor's personal immunity and judicial review of the Governor's actions, which is central to Statement I.