What Happened
- Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla nominated BJP's Ravi Shankar Prasad — a senior advocate and former Union Law Minister — as Chairperson of the Committee of Privileges of the 18th Lok Sabha.
- Fourteen other members were nominated to complete the 15-member panel, drawn from parties across the political spectrum.
- The Committee examines privilege breach cases referred by the Speaker, conducts quasi-judicial inquiries, and submits reports with recommendations to the full House.
- This constitutes the first time the Committee of Privileges has been formally set up for the 18th Lok Sabha (constituted June 2024), enabling Parliament to handle privilege disputes through its dedicated institutional mechanism.
- The panel's formation is significant in light of multiple incidents of disruption and privilege-related disputes during the initial sessions of the 18th Lok Sabha.
Static Topic Bridges
Parliamentary Privileges Under Article 105 of the Constitution
Article 105 of the Indian Constitution provides Parliament and its members with a set of powers, privileges, and immunities essential for the free and fearless conduct of legislative duties. The most important of these is Article 105(2), which provides absolute immunity from court proceedings for anything said or any vote cast in Parliament or its committees — a rule that prevents judicial second-guessing of legislative speech. Article 105(1) guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament, subject only to the rules of procedure. Under Article 105(3), until Parliament enacts a comprehensive Privileges Act, the uncodified privileges that existed before the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) continue to apply. India has not yet passed a standalone parliamentary privileges legislation, leaving the scope of these rights largely customary and court-defined.
- Article 105(1): Freedom of speech in Parliament (subject to rules of procedure, not judicial challenge)
- Article 105(2): Complete immunity from court proceedings for legislative speech and votes
- Article 105(3): Uncodified privileges operative — Parliament can codify them by law but has not yet done so
- 44th Amendment, 1978: Replaced reference to "powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons" with a parliamentary law-making mandate
- Article 194: Identical protection for state legislators (MLAs) and state legislative proceedings
- P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998): Supreme Court held that bribery to vote in Parliament is within parliamentary privilege — a controversial interpretation
- Sita Soren case (2023): Constitution Bench overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao; held that immunity under Article 105(2) does not extend to bribery — a landmark recalibration
Connection to this news: The Committee of Privileges is the body that operationalises these constitutional immunities — adjudicating when a privilege has been breached and recommending proportionate responses, thereby making the abstract constitutional guarantee into an enforceable institutional reality.
The Committee of Privileges — Role, Powers, and Procedure
The Committee of Privileges in the Lok Sabha is constituted under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. Its function is to examine privilege breach cases referred to it by the Speaker or the House and to recommend appropriate action. The Committee's proceedings are quasi-judicial in character: it summons witnesses, takes depositions, examines documents, and hears the person accused of breach before making findings. Its reports are tabled in the House, which then votes on whether to accept the recommendations. In serious cases, the House can expel a member — the most severe parliamentary sanction. Day-to-day process: a member raises a privilege motion → Speaker decides if prima facie case exists → admits or rejects → if admitted, refers to Committee or takes up in the House.
- Rule 222, Lok Sabha Rules: Governs constitution and functioning of the Committee of Privileges
- Composition: 15 members, multi-party; Chairperson nominated by Speaker
- Possible recommendations: Warning, reprimand, censure, suspension from the House (up to a session), expulsion
- Landmark action: 2005 Cash-for-Query case — 11 MPs expelled after sting operation showed them accepting money to raise questions in Parliament
- The Committee can investigate persons who are not MPs (journalists, lobbyists, ministers) if their actions are alleged to constitute contempt of Parliament
- Contempt vs. privilege: Contempt is broader — it includes actions that impede Parliament without technically breaching a specific privilege
Connection to this news: The formal constitution of this Committee — with a legally trained Chairperson — signals that the House intends to process pending and future privilege complaints through proper institutional procedure rather than ad hoc House resolutions.
Privilege Motions and Contempt of Parliament — Governance Dimension
Parliamentary privilege law intersects significantly with freedom of the press, executive accountability, and judicial review. Any person — including media organisations, officials, and members of the public — can be summoned for contempt if their actions are held to obstruct Parliament. This power has been criticised as potentially chilling investigative journalism and public commentary on Parliament. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC) and the Law Commission (222nd Report, 2015) have both recommended codifying parliamentary privileges by statute to make their scope transparent and limit their use to genuine obstruction cases. The tension between parliamentary sovereignty in privilege matters and the courts' power to review fundamental rights violations remains an unresolved constitutional frontier.
- Law Commission 222nd Report (2015): Recommended enacting a Parliamentary Privileges Act to codify and limit uncodified privileges
- 2nd ARC: Recommended restricting privileges to those functionally necessary for legislative work
- Journalists and contempt: Several journalists and publications have been summoned for contempt over critical coverage of parliamentary proceedings
- Judicial review: Courts have generally been reluctant to intervene in privilege matters — but will intervene if fundamental rights are violated (Searchlight case, 1959)
- MSM Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha (1959 — Searchlight case): Supreme Court held that privileges prevail over fundamental rights in cases of direct conflict — partially modified by later judgments
- Current status: No standalone Parliamentary Privileges Act exists; the field remains governed by custom and evolving court decisions
Connection to this news: The constitution of the Privileges Committee is a routine parliamentary event with significant institutional implications — it is the forum where the contested boundaries between parliamentary authority, individual rights, and press freedom get tested in specific cases.
Key Facts & Data
- Committee: Committee of Privileges, 18th Lok Sabha
- Chairperson: Ravi Shankar Prasad (BJP, senior advocate, former Law Minister and Electronics & IT Minister)
- Constituted by: Speaker Om Birla on March 3, 2026
- Total members: 15
- Governing rule: Rule 222, Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure
- Constitutional basis: Article 105 (Parliament); Article 194 (State Legislatures)
- Core immunity: Article 105(2) — no court proceedings for legislative speech or votes
- Sita Soren v. Union of India (2023): Constitution Bench (7-judge) overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998) — bribery to vote not protected by parliamentary immunity
- Parliament has not enacted a comprehensive Privileges Act — privileges remain uncodified
- 2005 Cash-for-Query: Most recent major Committee of Privileges exercise — 11 MPs expelled
- 18th Lok Sabha constituted: June 2024 (post general elections)