Disqualificationsofmembers

ARTICLE

101.Vacationofseats.

102.Disqualificationsformembership.

103.Decisiononquestionsastodisqualificationsofmembers.

104.Penaltyforsittingandvotingbeforemaingoathoraffirmationunderarticle99orwhennotqualifiedorwhen
disqualified.

Powers,PrivilegesandImmunitiesofParliamentanditsMembers

ARTICLE

105.Powers,privileges,etc.,oftheHousesofParliamentandofthemembersandcommitteesthereof.

106.Salariesandallowancesofmembers.

Central Government Act

Article 101 in The Constitution Of India 1949

101. Vacation of seats
(1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of Parliament and provision shall be made by Parliament by law for the
vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one House or the other
(2) No person shall be a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State and if a person is chosen
a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State, then, at the expiration of such period as may
be specified in rules made by the President, that persons seat in Parliament shall become vacant, unless he has
previously resigned his seat in the Legislature of the State
(3) If a member of either House of Parliament
(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualification s mentioned in clause ( 1 ) or clause ( 2 ) of Article 102, or
(b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Chairman or the Speaker, as the as may be, and his
resignation is accepted by the chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, his seat shall thereupon become vacant:
Provided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and
after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, is satisfied that such
resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation
(4) If for a period of sixty days a member of either House of Parliament is without permission of the House absent from
all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant: Provided that in computing the said period of sixty days no
account shall be taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than four
consecutive days
102. Disqualification s for membership
(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament
(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office
declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder;
(b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court;
(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;
(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any
acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State;
(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament Explanation For the purposes of this clause a person
shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State by reason
only that he is a Minister either for the Union or for such State
(2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if he is so disqualified under the
Tenth Schedule

103. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members

(1) If any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the
disqualifications mentioned in clause ( 1 ) of Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision of the President
and his decision shall be final
(2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission
and shall act according to such opinion

104. Penalty for sitting and voting before making oath or affirmation under Article 99 or when not qualified or when
disqualified If a person sits or votes as a member of either House of Parliament before he has complied with the
requirements of Article 99, or when he knows that he is not qualified or that he is disqualified for membership thereof,
or that he is prohibited from so doing by the provisions of any law made by Parliament, he shall be liable in respect of
each day on which he so sits or votes to a penalty of five hundred rupees to be recovered as a debt due to the Union
Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and its Members

105. Powers, privileges, etc of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof
(1) Subject to the provisions of this constitution and the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of
Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech in Parliament
(2) No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given
by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under
the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings
(3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of Parliament, and of the members and the
committees of each House, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined
shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of Section 15
of the Constitution (Forty fourth Amendment) Act 1978
(4) The provisions of clauses ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this constitution have
the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof
as they apply in relation to members of Parliament
106. Salaries and allowances of members Members of either House of Parliament shall be entitled to receive such
salaries and allowances as may from time to time be determined by Parliament by law and, until provision in that in that
respect is so made, allowances at such rates and upon such conditions as were immediately before the commencement of
this Constitution applicable in the case of members of the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India Legislative
Procedure

DISQUALIFICATION ON GROUND OF DEFECTION

The Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985 popularly known as the anti-defection law came into
force w.e.f. 1 March 1985. It amended articles 101, 102, 190 and 191 of the Constitution regarding vacation of
seats and disqualification from membership of Parliament and the State Legislatures and added a
new schedule i.e. the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution setting out certain provisions as to disqualification
on ground of defection.

In articles 102/191, a new clause (2) has been inserted which reads as follows:

(2) a person shall be disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if he is sodisqualified
under the Tenth Schedule.

The main provisions of the Tenth Schedule are

Grounds of Defection

2. The grounds on which disqualification can be incurred are as under:

(i) Members belonging to political parties

A member of a House belonging to any political party shall be disqualified for being a member of House

(a) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party; or

(b) if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to any direction issued by thePolitical party to
which he belongs or by any person or authority authorised by it in thisbehalf, without obtaining, in
either case, the prior permission of such political party, personor authority and such voting or abstention
has not been condoned by such political party,person or authority within fifteen days from the date of
such voting or abstention.

An elected member of a House shall be deemed to belong to the political party, if any, by which he was set up
as a candidate for elections as such member.

Nominated member of a House shall

(i) where he is a member of any political party on the date of his nomination as suchmember, be
deemed to belong to such political party;

(ii) in any other case, be deemed to belong to the political party of which he becomes, or, as the case may be,
first becomes, a member before the expiry of six months from the date onwhich he takes his seat after
complying with the requirements of article 99 or, as the casemay be, article 188.

(ii) Member elected otherwise than as candidate set up by any political party
 An elected Member of a House who has been elected as such otherwise than as a candidate set up by any
political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House if he joins any political party after such
election.

(iii) Nominated Members

No minated me mber o f a Ho use shall be disqualified for being a member of the House if he joins any
political party after the expiry of six months from the date on which he takes his seat after complying with the
requirements of article 99 or as the case may be, article 188.

Cases of split

3 . The Tenth Schedule as added to the Constitution by the Constitution (Fifty-

second Amendment) Act, 1985 contained a provision (paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule) to the effect
that no member will be disqualified from the membership of the House where he makes a claim that he and
any other members of his legislature party constitute a group representing a faction which has arisen as
a result of a split in his original political party and such group consists of not less than one third members
of the legislature party concerned.

This provision (paragraph 3) has since been o m it t ed fr o m t h e T en t h Sc h ed ul e by

t he Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003, which came into force with effect from 1
January, 2 00 4. Co n se q u en t u po n t h e o m is s io n o f Paragraph 3, it is not now permissible to
claim a split in the legislature party.

Cases of merger

4. No member will be disqualified from the membership of the House where his original political party
merges with another political party and he claims that he and any other members of his original political party
have become members of the other political party or of the newly formed political party provided not less than
two third of the members of the legislature party concerned have agreed to such merger.

Exemption to persons elected to the office of Speaker/Chairman or Deputy

Speaker/Deputy Chairman

5. No disqualification is incurred by a person who has been elected to the office of the Speaker or the Deputy
Speaker of the House of the People or of the Legislative Assembly of a State or to the Office of the Deputy
Chairman of the Council of States or the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council of a
State if he severes his connections with his political party after such election. Also, no disqualification is
incurred if he, having given up by reason of his election to such office, his membership of the political party to
which he belonged immediately before such election, rejoins such political party after he ceases to hold such
office.

Chairman/Speaker to decide questions as to disqualification on ground of defection

6. The question as to whether a member of a House of Parliament or State Legislature has become subject
to disqualification will be determined by the Chairman/Speaker of the House and his decision will be final.
Where the question is with reference to the Chairman/Speaker himself it will be decided by a member of the
House elected by the House in that behalf and his decision will be final.

All proceedings in relation to any question as to disqualification of a member of a House under the Tenth
Schedule shall be deemed to be proceedings in Parliament within the meaning of article 122.

Bar on Jurisdiction of Courts

7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, no court has any jurisdiction* in respect of
any matter connected with the disqualification of a member of a House on ground of defection.

Power to make Rules

 8. The Chairman or the Speaker of a House has been empowered to make rules for giving effect to
the provisions of the Tenth Schedule. The rules are required to be laid before each House and are subject to
modifications/disapproval by the House.

The Chairman or the Speaker of the House may without prejudice to the provision of article 105 or as the
case may be, article 194, and to any other power which he may have under the Constitution direct that any
wilful contravention by any person of the rules made under paragraph 8 of the Tenth Schedule may be dealt
with in the same manner as a breach of privilege of the House.

* Para 7 of the Tenth Schedule which stipulates this bar on judicial review, has been declared invalid by the
Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachilhu (case)AIR 1993, SC 412. This provision, however, still forms
part of the Tenth Schedule as no constitutional Amendment Bill has been brought forward by the Government
so far for omitting the same from the Tenth Schedule.

Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1985

9. The Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1985; as framed, by
the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule were laid on the Table of the House on 16 December, 1985 and came into
force with effect from 18 March, 1986.

The main provisions of these Rules are given below:

Information etc. to be furnished by leader of a legislature party

10. The Rules cast a responsibility on the leaders of legislature parties in the House to furnish to the
Speaker within 30 days after the first sitting of the Houses or within 30 days after the formation of
such legislature party as the case may be, a statement containing the names of members of such
legislature party, a copy of the rules and regulations/constitution of the political party concerned and where
such legislature party has a separate set of rules and regulations, constitution, a copy of such rules
and regulations/constitution. This information is required to be given in Form-I as prescribed in
Disqualification Rules. The leader of the legislature party is alsorequired to inform the Speaker about the
changes that take place in the strength of the party or in its rules, regulations, constitution, etc. Duty is also
cast on the leader of the legislature party or the person authorised by him in that behalf to communicate to the
Speaker any instance of a member of the party voting or abstaining from voting in the House contrary to
any direction issued by such political party without obtaining the prior permission of such party, person or
authority. Such communication is required to be furnished in Form-II as prescribed in the Disqualification Rules.

Where a Legislature party consists of only one member such member is also required to furnish a copy of
the rules and regulations of his political party to the Speaker within thirty days after the first sitting of the House
or where he has become a member of the House after the first sitting, within thirty days after he has taken
seat in the House or in either case within such further period as the Speaker may for sufficient cause allow.

Information to be furnished by members

11. Every member is invariably required to individually furnish to the Speaker a statement giving details
of his party affiliation etc. as on the date of election/nomination in Form-III as prescribed in
the Disqualification Rules. In the event of any change in the information given by the members in
their respective Forms-III, in terms of declaration in their forms, they are required to immediately intimate
the same to the Speaker.

Petitions re. Disqualification

12. No reference of any question as to whether a member has become subject to disqualification shall be made
except by a petition in relation to such member made in writing to the Speaker by any other member.

Every petition is required to contain a concise statement of the material facts and to be accompanied by
copies of documentary evidence, if any, on which the petitioner relies. Every petition is required to be signed
by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the verification
of pleadings. Every annexure to the petition is required to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same
manner.
 Procedure

13. On receipt of a petition, the Speaker shall consider whether the petition complies with
the requirements of the Rules. If the petition does not comply with the requirements, the Speaker
shall dismiss the petition and intimate the petitioner accordingly. If the petition complies with
the requirements, copies of the petition are forwarded to the member in relation to whom the petition has
been made and if the member belongs to any legislature party, and such petition has not been made by
the leader thereof, also to such leader, for furnishing their comments in writing to the Speaker on the petition.

After considering the comments, the Speaker may either proceed to determine the question or, if he
is s at i sf ie d , h avi n g r e g ar d to th e n at u r e an d circumstances of the case that it is necessary
or expedient so to do refer the petition to the Committee of Privileges for making a preliminary inquiry
and submitting a report to him.

The procedure which shall be followed by the Speaker for determining the question of disqualification and
the procedure which shall be followed by the Committee of Privileges for making preliminary inquiry* shall, so
far as may be, the same as the procedure for making inquiry and determination by the Committee of any question
of breach of privilege of the House.

* The Committee of Privileges (14th L.S.) while considering some petitions filed under the Tenth Schedule to theConstitution and the rules made
thereunder referred to the Committee by the Speaker gave a very careful thought tothe true import of the term preliminary inquiry.
The Committee came to a conclusion that in such matters, theCommittee are required only to give their findings on the facts of the case and it isnt
the Committees remit to decidequestions of law and arrive at conclusions on the merits of the case and make recommendations.

If the Speaker makes a reference to the Committee of Privileges, he shall proceed to determine
the question as soon as may be after receipt of the report from the Committee.

Neither the Speaker nor the Committee come to any finding that a member has become subject
to disqualification, without affording a reasonable opportunity to such member to represent his case and to
be heard in person.

After the conclusion of the consideration of the petition, the Speaker may by order in writing dismiss the
petition or declare that the member in relation to whom the petition has been made has become subject to
disqualification under the Tenth Schedule and cause copies of the order to be delivered or forwarded to
the petitioner, the member in relation to whom the petition has been made and to the leader of the legislature
party, if any, concerned. The order of the Speakerdisqualifying the member is reproduced in Bulletin Part-II
and is also notified in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3 (ii).

Where the Speaker declares that a member has become subject to disqualification under the
Tenth Schedule, he shall cease to be member of the House with effect from the date of the order by the
Speaker.

The Speaker has power to issue such directions as he may consider necessary in regard to the detailed working
of the Members of Lok Sabha (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1985.

[Articles 101, 102, 190 and 191 of the Constitution, Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and Members of Lok
Sabha (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1985.]

What is the significance of Article 105 from the Indian Constitution?

Parliamentary privileges-this article defines parliamentary privileges of both Houses of Parliament and of their members and committees.
Article 194, which is an exact reproduction of Article 105, deals with the State Legislatures and their members and committees. To enable
Parliament to discharge functions properly the Constitution confers on each member of the Houses certain rights and immunities and also
certain rights and immunities and powers on each house collectively. Parliamentary privilege is an essential incident to the high and
multifarious functions which the legislature is called upon to perform. According to May, the distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary
character a necessary means to fulfillment of functions. Individual members enjoy privileges because the House cannot perform its function
without unimpeded use of the services of its members and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own
authority and dignity.

In defining parliamentary privilege this article adopts certain method. Two privileges, namely, freedom of speech and freedom of
publication of proceedings, are specifically mentioned in clauses (1) and (2). With respect to other privileges of each House, clause (3)
before its amendment in 1978 laid down that the powers, privileges and immunities shall be those of the House of Commons of the United
Kingdom at the commencement of the Constitution until they are defined by an Act of Parliament. Though since 1978 position has changed
in so far as the privileges of parliament, its members and committees have to be determined on the basis of what they were immediately
before the commencement of 1978 amendment i.e., before 20th June 1979.

Freedom of speech

Article 105, clause (1), expressly safeguards freedom of speech in parliament. It says: there shall be freedom of speech in parliament. Clause
(2) further provides that no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote
given by him in parliament or any committee thereof. No action, civil or criminal, will therefore lie against a member for defamation or the
like in respect of things said in parliament or its committees. The immunity is not limited to mere spoken words; it extends to votes, as
clause (2) specifically declares, viz. any vote given by him in parliament or any committee thereof. Though not expressly stated, the freedom
of speech would extend to other acts also done in connection with the proceedings of each House, such as, for notices of motions, questions,
reports of the committee, or the resolutions.

It may be noted that clause (1) of Article 105 is made Subject to the provisions of this constitution and to the rules and standing orders
regulating the procedures of Parliament. The words regulating the procedures of Parliament occurring in clause (1) should be read as
covering both the provisions of the Constitution and the rules and standing orders. So read, freedom of speech in Parliament becomes
subject to the provisions of Constitution relating to the procedures of Parliament, i.e., subject to the articles relating to procedures in Part V
including Articles 107 and 121. Thus for example, freedom of speech in Parliament would not permit a member to discuss the conduct of
any judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court. Likewise, the freedom of speech is subject to the rules of procedures of a House, such as
use of unparliamentary language or unparliamentary conduct.

The freedom of speech guaranteed under clause (1) is different from that which a citizen enjoys as a fundamental right under Article 19 (1)
(a). the freedom of speech as a fundamental right does not protect an individual absolutely for what he says. The right is subject to
reasonable restrictions under clause (2) of Article 19. The term ?freedom of speech? as used in this article means that no member of
Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings, civil and criminal, in any court for the statements made in debates in the Parliament or any
committee thereof. The freedom of speech conferred under this article cannot therefore be restricted under Article 19 (2) . Clauses (1) and
(2) of Article 105 protect what is said within the house and not what a member of Parliament may say outside. Accordingly, if a member
publishes his speech outside Parliament, he will be held liable if the speech is defamatory . Besides, the freedom of speech. To which Article
105 (1) and (2) refer, would be available to a member of Parliament when he attends the session of Parliament, no occasion arises for the
exercise of the right of freedom of speech, and no complaint can be made that the said right has been invalidly invaded.

Article 105 (2) confers immunity, inter alia, in respect of anything said in Parliament the word anything is of the widest import and is
equivalent to everything. The only limitation arises from the words in Parliament, which means during the sitting of Parliament and in the
course of business of Parliament. Once it was proved that Parliament was sitting and its business was transacted, anything said during the
course of that business was immune from proceedings in any court. This immunity is not only complete but it is as it should be. It is one of
the essence of parliamentary system of government that people's representative should be free to express themselves without fear of legal
expenses. What they say is only subject to the discipline of the rules of Parliament, the good sense of the members and the control of
proceedings by the speaker. The courts have no say in the matter and should really have none.

In a much publicized matter involving former Prime Minister, several ministers, Members of Parliament and others a divided Court, in
P.V.Narsimha Rao v. State has held that the privilege of immunity from courts proceedings in Article 105 (2) extends even to bribes taken
by the Members of Parliament for the purpose of voting in a particular manner in Parliament. The majority (3 judges) did not agree with
the minority (2 judges) that the words in respect of in Article 105 (2) mean, arising out of and therefore would not cover conduct antecedent
to speech or voting in Parliament. The court was however unanimous that the members of Parliament who gave bribes, or who took bribes
but did not participate in the voting could not claim immunity from court proceeding's under Article 105 (2). The decision has invoked so
much controversy and dissatisfaction that a review petition is pending in the court.

Right of Publication of proceedings

Clause (2) of Article 105 expressly declares that no person shall be liable in respect of the publication by order under the authority of a
house of Parliament, of any report, paper, votes or proceedings. Common law accords the defence of qualified privilege to fair and accurate
unofficial reports of parliamentary proceedings, published in a newspaper or elsewhere. In Wason v. Walter , Cockburn, C.J. observed that
it was of paramount public and national importance that parliamentary proceedings should be communicated to public, which has the
deepest interest in knowing what passes in Parliament. But a partial report or a report of detached part of proceedings published with
intent to injure individuals will be disentitled to protection. The same is the law in India. The Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of
Publication) Act, 1956 enacts that no person shall be liable to any proceedings, civil or criminal, in a court in respect of the publication of a
substantially true report of the proceedings in either House of the Parliament, unless it is proved that the publication is made with malice.

Other privileges

Clause (3) of Article 105, as amended declares that the privileges of each House of Parliament, its members and committees shall be such as
determined by Parliament from time to time and until Parliament does so, which it has not yet done, shall be such as on 20th June 1979 i.e.,
on the date of commencement of Section 15 of the 44th Amendment. Before the amendment this clause has provided that until Parliament
legislates the privileges of each House and its members shall be such as those of the House of Commons in England at the time of
commencement of the Constitution. As the position till 20th June 1979 was determined on the basis of original provision, it is still relevant
to refer to the law as it has been in the context of English law. In that perspective it may be emphasized that there are certain privileges that
cannot be claimed by Parliament in India. For example, the privileges of access to the sovereign, which is exercised by the House of
Commons through its Speaker to have at all times the right of access to the sovereign through their chosen representative can have no
application in India.

Similarly, a general warrant of arrest issued by Parliament in India cannot claim to be regarded as a court of record in any sense . Also the
privilege of the two Houses of Parliament, unlike the privileges of the House of Commons and House of Lords in England are identical. To
each House of Parliament, accordingly, belong the privileges, which are possessed by the House of Commons in the United Kingdom.

In India freedom from arrest has been limited to civil causes and has not been applied to arrest on criminal charges or to detention under
the Preventive Detention Act . Also there is no privilege if arrest is made under s.151 Criminal Procedure Code . It has been held in K.
Anandan Kumar v. Chief Secretary, Government of Madras , that matters of Parliament do not enjoy any special status as compared to an
ordinary citizen in respect of valid orders of detention.

In India, the rules of procedure in the House of People give the chair the power, whenever it thinks fit, of ordering the withdrawal of
strangers from any part of the House and when the House sits in a secret session no stranger is permitted to be present in the chamber,
lobby or galleries. The only exceptions are the members of the Council of States and the persons authorized by the Speaker.

In Pandit M.S.M Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha, proceedings for the breach of privilege had been started against an editor of a newspaper
for publishing those parts of the speech of a member delivered in Bihar legislative assembly which the speaker had ordered to be expunged
from the proceedings of the Assembly. The editor in a writ petition under A. 32 contended that the House of Commons had no privilege to
prohibit either the publication of the publicly seen and heard proceedings that took place in the House or of that part of the proceedings
which had been directed to be expunged. The Supreme Court by a majority of four to one rejected the contention of the petitioner. Das C.J.,
who delivered the majority judgment, observed that the House of Commons had at the commencement of our Constitution the power or
privilege of prohibiting the publication of even a true and faithful report of the debates or proceedings that took place within the House. A
fortiori the House had at the relevant time the power or privilege of prohibiting the publication of an inaccurate version of such debates or
proceedings.

Now Article 361-A inserted by the 44th Amendment with effect from June 20, 1979 provides that no person shall be liable to any
proceedings civil or criminal for reporting the proceedings of either House of Parliament or a State Legislature unless the reporting is
proved to have been made with malice. This provision does not apply to the reporting of proceedings of secret sittings of the Houses.
In India there also vest a right of the House to regulate its own constitution. When a seat of a member elected to the house becomes vacant,
the Election Commission, by a notification in the Gazette of India calls upon the Parliamentary constituency concerned to elect a person for
the purpose of filling the vacancy. In India, Article 103 expressly provides that if any question arises as to whether a member of either
House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications, the question shall be referred to the President whose decision shall
be final. The President is however required to act in this behalf according to the opinion of Election Commission.

As far as right to regulate internal proceedings are concerned Article 122 expressly provides that the validity of any proceedings shall not be
called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure, and no officer or member of Parliament in whom powers are
vested by or under the Constitution for regulating the procedure or the conduct of business or for maintaining order in Parliament shall be
subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.

Law Courts and Privileges

Article 105, so also Article 194 subjects the powers, privileges and immunities of each House as well as all its members and all its
committees not only to the laws made by the appropriate legislature but also to all other provisions of the Constitution. Both these articles
far from dealing with the legislative powers of the Houses of Parliament or of State Legislature respectively are confined in scope to such
powers of each House as it may exercise separately functioning as a House.

A House of Parliament or Legislature cannot try anyone or any case directly as a court of justice can, but it can proceed quasi judicially in
cases of contempt of its authority or take up motions concerning its privileges and immunities in order to seek removal of obstructions to
the due performance of its legislative functions. If any question of jurisdiction arises as to a certain matter, it has to be decided by a court of
law in appropriate proceedings. For example, the jurisdiction to try a criminal offence such as murder, committed even within a House
vests in ordinary courts and not in a of Parliament or in a State Legislature. Also, a House of Parliament or State Legislature cannot in
exercise of any supposed powers under Articles 105 and 194 decide election disputes for which special authorities have been constituted
under the Representation of People Act, 1951 enacted in compliance with Article 329.

Parliamentary Privileges and Fundamental Rights

In Pandit M.S.M. Sharma's case it was also contended by the petitioner that the privileges of the House under A.194 (3) are subject to the
provision of Part III of the Constitution. In supposrt of his contention the petitioner relied n the Supreme Court's decision in Gunupati
Keshavram Reddi v. Nafisul Hasan. In this latter case Homi Mistry was arrested at his B'bay residence under a warrant issued by the
Speaker of U.P. Assembly for contempt of the House and was flown to Lucknow & kept in a hotel in Speaker's custody. On his applying for a
writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court directed his release as he had not been produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest
as provided in Article 22 (2). This decision therefore indicated that Article 194 (or Article 105) was subject to the Articles of Part III of the
Constitution.

In Sharma's case the Court held that in case of conflict between fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) and a privilege under Article 194
(3) the latter would prevail. As regards Article 21, on facts the Court did not find any violation of it. In Powers, Privileges and Immunities of
the State Legislature, Re , the proposition laid down in Sharma's case was explained not to mean that in all cases the privileges shall
override the fundamental rights.

The rules of each House provide for a committee of privileges. The matter of breach of privilege or contempt is referred to the committee of
privileges. The committee has power to summon members or strangers before it. Refusal to appear or to answer or to knowingly to give
false answer is itself a contempt. The committee's recommendations are reported to the House which discusses them and gives its own
decision.