Article 105 and Parliamentary Privileges: Supreme Court's Stance on MPs' Freedom of Speech

The Hindu - Opinion · 19 Feb 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance

Recent expunctions of Opposition speeches in Parliament raise constitutional concerns about MPs' freedom of speech under Article 105, with the Supreme Court emphasizing that procedural rules cannot eclipse fundamental legislative privileges.

Key points

Article 105 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament, subject only to constitutional provisions and parliamentary rules, forming the bedrock of legislative democracy.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that procedural restrictions cannot nullify constitutional rights, establishing a precedent applicable to parliamentary speech protections under Article 105.

Rule 380 of Lok Sabha Rules permits expunction only of specific unparliamentary words, not entire sentences or paragraphs, making wholesale deletions constitutionally questionable.

[GS2-Governance] The current Speaker's expansive use of expunction powers contrasts with Nehruvian parliamentary traditions that valued Opposition voices as essential for executive accountability.

Article 121 imposes the only constitutional restriction on parliamentary speech, barring discussion of judicial conduct except during impeachment proceedings.

The Erskine May principle underscores that parliamentary privileges exist to enable effective legislative functioning, not to suppress dissent or opposition critique.

[GS4-Ethics] Recent expunctions risk creating an official record that distorts parliamentary history, violating the ethical obligation to preserve authentic legislative proceedings.

The Ivor Jennings doctrine establishes that government-Opposition dynamics require mutual forbearance, with Opposition criticism being a constitutional duty rather than disruption.

This connects to GS2-Polity questions on separation of powers, as judicial interpretations (like this Supreme Court position) shape legislative-executive relations.

Way Forward: Parliament should establish clear guidelines distinguishing unparliamentary language from legitimate criticism, create an appeals mechanism for expunctions, and codify Speaker's discretionary powers to prevent arbitrary use of Rule 380.

Key terms

Article 105

Constitutional provision granting MPs freedom of speech in Parliament, subject only to constitutional limitations and parliamentary rules. For UPSC, this is fundamental to understanding legislative privileges and the balance between parliamentary autonomy and constitutional governance.

Rule 380

Lok Sabha rule permitting the Speaker to expunge 'defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary or undignified' words from proceedings. Its UPSC relevance lies in testing the limits of parliamentary procedure versus constitutional rights, a frequent tension in polity questions.

Erskine May

The definitive work on parliamentary practice, establishing that privileges exist solely to enable effective legislative functioning. For UPSC, this principle helps analyze contemporary issues of parliamentary conduct through constitutional first principles.

Ivor Jennings Doctrine

Constitutional theory that healthy government-Opposition dynamics require the majority to govern while allowing minority criticism. Crucial for UPSC's governance questions on institutional checks and balances in democracy.