CONTENTS

1. Definition and Scope of Privileges

2. Main Privileges of Parliament

3. Breach of Privilege and contempt of Parliament

4. Power of Parliament to punish for Contempt

5. Freedom of Speech

6. Parliamentary Privileges and the Press

7.Privilege of Freedom from arrest or molestation

8. Use of Handcuffs

9. Points of Propriety

10.Questions of Privilege and working of Committee of Privileges

11. Procedure when a breach of Privilege is committed by a member of other House

DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF PRIVILEGE

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House
collectively as a constituent part of Parliament and by members of each House
individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, efficiently and
effectively, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. When any
of these rights and immunities, both of the members, individually, and of the assembly in
its collective capacity which are known by the general name of privileges, are
disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of
privilege, and is punishable under the law of Parliament. Articles 105/194 of the
Constitution deal with the powers, privileges and immunities of Members of
Parliament/State Legislatures and their House, Members and Committees. Each House
also claims the right to punish actions which, while not breaches of any specific privilege,
are offences against its authority or dignity, such as disobedience to its legitimate
commands or libels upon itself. its officers or its members. Such actions, though called
"breaches of privilege" are more properly distinguished as "contempts".

2. Article 105 of the Constitution of India which provides for the powers, privileges and
immunities of the Houses of Parliament and of the Members and the Committee thereof
reads as follows:-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to 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.

3. The corresponding provisions relating to the powers, privileges and immunities of the
Houses of State Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof are contained in
Article 194 of the Constitution which are in identical terms to those in Article 105
relating to Parliament.

4. Section 15 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 came into force
with effect from the 20th June, 1979. Prior to that, clause (3) of Article 105 provided that
"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 from time to time
be defined by Parliament by law, and, until so defined, shall be those of the House of
Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees,
at the commencement of the Constitution i.e. on the 26th January, 1950".

No law has so far been enacted by Parliament (and State Legislatures) in pursuance of
clause (3) of Articles 105/194 of the Constitution to define the powers, privileges and
immunities of each House and of the Members and the committees thereof. In the
absence of any such law, therefore, the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses
of Parliament and State Legislatures and of the Members and the committees thereof
continue in actual practice to be governed by the precedents of the British House of
Commons as they existed on the date our Constitution came into force.

5. It may be observed that Article 105(3) stipulates that Parliament may from time to time
define its privileges by law and it has been urged particularly by the Press that there
should be codification of the law of privilege so as to make the position clear and free
from ambiguity. The question of undertaking legislation on the subject has also engaged
the attention of the Presiding Officers of Parliament and State Legislatures in India since
1921. The dominant view, however, has all along been that any codification is more
likely to harm the prestige and sovereignty of Parliament/State Legislatures without any
benefit being conferred on the Press and that in the present circumstances, codification of
Parliamentary privileges is neither necessary nor desirable.

MAIN PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT

6. Some of the more important privileges of each House of Parliament and of its members
and Committees are as follows: -

(i) Freedom of speech in Parliament [of Article 105(1) of the

Constitution].

(ii) Immunity to a member from any proceedings in any court in respect of

any thing said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any Committees
thereof [of Article 105(2) of the Constitution].

(iii) Immunity to a person from proceedings in any court in respect of the

publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any
report, paper, votes or Proceedings [of Article 105(2) of the Constitution].

(iv) Prohibition on the courts to inquire into proceedings of Parliament (of

Article 122 of the Constitution).

(v) Freedom from arrest of Members in civil cases during the continuance
of the session of the House and forty days before its commencement and
forty days after its conclusion (of section 135 of the Code of Civil
Procedure).

(vi) Right of the House to receive immediate information of the arrest,

detention, conviction, imprisonment arid release of Member (of Rules
222A and 222B of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in
Rajya Sabha).
 (vii) Prohibition of arrest and service of legal process within the precincts
of the House without obtaining the permission of the Chairman/Speaker.

(viii) Prohibition of disclosure of the proceeding or decision's of a secret

sitting of the House.

(ix) Members or Officers of the House cannot give evidence or produce

documents in courts of law, relating to the proceedings of the House
without the permission of the House (of First Report of Committee of
Privileges of Rajya Sabha presented to the House on the 1st May, 1958).

(x) Members or Officers of the House cannot attend as a witness before

the other House or a Committee thereof or before a House of State
Legislature or a Committee thereof without the permission of the House
and they cannot be compelled to do so without their consent (of Sixth
Report of Committee of Privileges of Second Lok Sabha, adopted by Lok
Sabha on the 17th December, 1958 and Thirty-third Report of the
Committee of Privileges of Rajya Sabha, adopted by the House on 30th
March, 1993).

(xi) All Parliamentary Committees are empowered to send for persons,

papers and records relevant for the purposes of the inquiry by a
Committee. A witness may be summoned by a Parliamentary Committee
who may be required to produce such documents as are required for the
use of a Committee.

(xii) The evidence tendered before a Parliamentary Committee and its

report and proceedings cannot be disclosed or published by anyone until
these have been laid on the Table of the House.

7. In addition to the above-mentioned privileges and immunities, each House also enjoys
certain consequential

powers necessary for the protection of its privileges and immunities. These powers are as
follows: -

(i) to commit persons, whether they are Member or not, for breach of
privilege or contempt of the House;

(ii) to compel the attendance of witnesses and to send for papers and
records;

(iii) to regulate its own procedure and the conduct of its business; (of
Article 118 of the Constitution).

(iv) to prohibit the publication of its debates and proceedings;

 (v) to exclude strangers from the House.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

When any individual or authority disregards or attacks any of the privileges, rights and
immunities, either of the Members individually or of the House in its collective capacity,
the offence is called a breach of privilege and is punishable by the House. Besides,
actions in the nature of offences against the authority or dignity of the House, such as
disobedience to its legitimate orders or libels upon itself, its Members, Committees or
Officers also constitute breach of privilege.

Contempt of the House may be defined generally as "any act or omission which
obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or
which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his
duty, or which has a tendency directly or indirectly, to produce such results." It may be
stated that it is not possible to enumerate exhaustively every act which might be
construed by the House as a contempt of the House. Some of the important types of
contempt of Parliament are, however, mentioned below:-

(i) Speeches or writings reflecting on the House, its Committees or

Members;

(ii) Reflections on the character and impartiality of the Chairman/Speaker

in the discharge of his duty;

(iii) Publication of false or distorted report of the Proceedings of the

House;

(iv) Publication oil expunged proceedings of the House;

(v) Publication of proceedings of secret Sessions of the House;

(vi) Pre-mature publication of proceedings, evidence or report of a

Parliamentary Committee;

(vii) Reflections on the report of a Parliamentary Committee;

(viii) Molestation of Members on account of their conduct in the House or

obstructing Members while in the performance of their duties as Members
or while on their way to or coming after, attending the House or a
Committee thereof;

(ix) Offering bribes to Members to influence them in their Parliamentary

conduct;
 (x) Intimidation of Members in connection with their Parliamentary
conduct;

(xi) Any misconduct or undignified behaviour on the part of a Member,

such as, corruption in the execution of his office as Member, disorderly
and undignified conduct contrary to the usage or inconsistent with
accepted standards of Parliamentary conduct;

(xii) Obstructing or molesting officers of the House in the discharge of

their duties;

(xiii) Giving false or misleading evidence or information deliberately to

the House or a Committee thereof, by a Member or a witness.

(xiv) Obstructing or molesting any witness during his evidence before a

Committee of the House.

POWER OF PARLIAMENT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT

10. Each House of Parliament is the guardian of its own privileges. Courts of law in India
have recognised that a House of Parliament (or of a State Legislature) is the sole
authority to judge as to whether or not there has been a breach of privilege or contempt of
the House in a particular case.1 The House may punish a person found guilty of breach of
privilege of contempt of the House either by reprimand or admonition or by
imprisonment for a specified period. In case of its own Members, two other punishments
can be awarded by the House, namely, suspension from the service of the House or
expulsion.

The penal Jurisdiction of the House is not confined to its own Members nor to offences
committed in its immediate presence, but extends to all contempts of the House, whether
committed by members or any persons who are not Members, irrespective of whether the
offence is committed within the House or beyond its walls. The power to punish

________________________________________________

1M.S.M. Sharma, Vs. Shri Krishna Sinha, AIR. 1959, S.C. 395; Homi D. Mistry Vs.
Nafisul Hassan, I.L.R. 1957, Bombay 218.

Members, irrespective of whether the offence is committed within the House or beyond
its walls. The power to punish is the most potent weapon in the hands of a House of
legislature which gives reality to privileges of Parliament, emphasises its sovereign
character and vindicates its own authority and dignity. Therefore, it has aptly been
described as the key-stone of Parliamentary privilege.
It is also a tradition of the House that unqualified and unconditional regrets sincerely
expressed by the persons guilty of breach of privilege and contempt of the House are
accepted by the House and the House normally decides in such cases to best check its
own dignity by taking no further notice of the matter.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

11. The most important privilege of Members of Parliament is freedom of speech in

Parliament. This privilege is embodied in clauses (1) and (2) of Article 105 of the
Constitution. This privilege is based (in Article 9)of the Bill of Rights, 1989 of the United
Kingdom whereby it was declared:

"That the freedom of speech, and debate or proceedings in Parliament, Ought not to be
impeached or questioned in any wart or place out of Parliament."

Thus no action can be taken against a Member of Parliament in any Court or before any
authority other than Parliament in respect of anything said or any Vote given by him in
Parliament or any Committee thereof. It is also a breach of privilege to molest a Member
or to take any action against him or to threaten action against him on account of anything
said by him in Parliament Committee thereof it would be breach of privilege to institute
any legal proceedings against a Member in respect of anything said by him in Parliament.

12. A Member cannot also be questioned in any court or by any agency outside
Parliament for any disclosures he may make in Parliament.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES AND THE PRESS

13. The Press is often called an extension of Parliament. It conveys to the people the
substance of Parliamentary legislation and discussion and keeps the people informed of
what is happening in Parliament.

Though what appears in the Press may influence the Members and provide them with
necessary background, the material itself does not form an authentic record of facts and
exclusive reliance cannot be placed by a Member of Parliament on the matter as reported.
Thus, it has been ruled by successive Presiding Officers that questions, motions and other
notices which are merely based on Press reports may not be admitted. The Member may
be required to produce some other primary evidence on which his notice is based.

Freedom of the Press has not been expressly provided for in the Constitution, but is
implicit in the fundamental right of the "freedom of speech and expression" guaranteed to
the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It has been settled by judicial
decisions that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of the Press.
14. It is a breach of privilege and contempt of the House to publish expunged proceedings
of the House. This question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the
Searchlight case wherein the Court ruled that a report of the whole speech including by
expunged portion though factually correct, may the law be regarded as perverted and
unfaithful and the publication of such a report may, prima facie, be regarded as
constituting a breach of privilege of the House.5

15. Absolute immunity from proceedings in any court of law has been conferred under
the Constitution on all personnels connected with the publication of proceedings of either
House of Parliament, if such publication is made by or under the authority of the House.
[of Article 105(2)]. This immunity does not, however, extend to the publication of reports
of Parliamentary proceedings in newspapers, whether published by a Member of the
House or by any other person, unless such publication is expressly authorised by either
House. However, constitutional protection has been given to the publication in
newspapers or broadcasts by wireless telegraphy of substantially true reports of any
proceedings of either House of Parliament, provided the reports are for the public good
and are not actuated by malice.

________________________________________________

5M.S.M. Sharma Vs. Sri Krishna Sinha, A.I.R. 1959, S.C. 395.

The Article 361A of the Constitution provides as follows: -

"361A. (1) No persons shall be liable to any proceedings civil or criminal,

in any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper of a substantially
true report of any proceedings of either House of Parliament or the
Legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the
Legislature of a State, unless the publication is proved to have been made
with malice

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the publication of any
report of the proceedings of a secret sitting of either House of Parliament
or the Legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the
Legislature of a State.

(2) Clause (1) shall apply in relation to reports or matters broadcast by

means of wireless telegraphy as part of any programme or service
provided by means of a broadcasting station as it applies in relation to
reports or matters published in a newspaper.

Explanation in this Article 'newspaper' includes a news agency report

containing material for publication in a newspaper."

16. The above protection has been accorded within the overall limitation that the House
has the power to control and, if necessary, to prohibit the publication of its debates or
proceedings and to punish for the violation of its orders. Normally, no restrictions are
imposed on reporting the proceedings of the House. But when debates or proceedings of
the House or its Committees are reported mala fide or there is wilful misrepresentation or
suppression of speeches of particular Members, it is a breach of privilege and contempt
of the House and the offender is liable to punishment. Further, the press is forbidden to
publish any part of the proceedings or evidence given before, or any document presented
to Parliamentary Committee before such proceedings or evidence or document has been
reported to the House. The Committee of Privileges in its 29th Report inter-alia
considered a question of breach of privilege arising out of the premature publication of
the proceedings of the Committee before they were reported to the House by some
newspapers. The Committee observed that the proceedings of a Parliamentary Committee
are confidential and should not be disclosed or given any publicity unless the same is
presented to the House or is other-wise treated as not confidential and therefore
constitutes a breach of privilege and contempt of the House. Taking a note of the apology
tendered by the concerned newspapers the Committee recommended no further action but
warned all concerned that any premature publication or disclosure of the proceedings of
the Committee will be dealt with seriously in such occasions arise in future It is also
incumbent on the press not to disclose the proceedings or decisions of a secret sitting of
the House, until the ban on secrecy is lifted by the House. Any such publication or
disclosure is treated as a gross breach of privilege of the House.
.

PRIVILEGE OF FREEDOM FROM ARREST OR MOLESTATION

17. The privilege of freedom from arrest is confined only to civil cases for the duration of
the Session and for a period of forty days before and forty days after the Session. The
object of this privilege is to ensure the safe arrival and regular attendance of Members in
Parliament. The arrest of a Member of Parliament in civil proceedings during the period
when he is exempted from such arrest is a breach of privilege and the Member concerned
is entitled to release. This privilege of freedom from arrest does not, however, extend to
criminal offence or cases of detention under the preventive detention.

18. Although Members do not have any privilege or immunity from arrest on a criminal
charge or under any law for preventive detention the House has a right to receive
immediate information of the arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment and release of a
Member. This position is stated in Rules 222A and 222B of the Rules of Procedure and
Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha.

19. The failure on the part of a judge or a magistrate or other authority to inform the
House of the arrest/detention or imprisonment of a Member would constitute a breach of
privilege of the House.

20. Another privilege which a Member under custody enjoys is his right to correspond
without any let or hindrance with the Chairman/Speaker, Secretary-General or Chairman
of a Parliamentary Committee. It is a breach of privilege to withhold any communication
addressed by a member in custody to the Chairman/Speaker, Secretary-General or the
Chairman of a Parliamentary Committee.

21. No arrest, whether of a member or of a stranger can be made within the precincts of
the House without containing the prior permission of the Chairman/Speaker and that too
in accordance with procedure laid down by the Home Ministry in this regard. Similarly
no legal process, civil or criminal, can be served within the precincts of the House
without obtaining the prior permission of the Chairman/Speaker whether the House is in
Session or not. As a corollary to this rule, the court of law should not seek to serve a legal
process, civil or criminal, on Members of Parliament through the Chairman/Speaker or
the Rajya Sabha/Lok Sabha Secretariat. The appropriate procedure is for the summons to
be served direct on Members concerned outside the precincts of Parliament, that is, at
their residence or at some other place. A court of law should not also ask the
Chairman/Speaker or the Rajya Sabha/Lok Sabha Secretariat to inform a Member about
issue of a legal process against him or seek to utilise in any manner the agency of the
Chairman/Speaker or of the Secretariats of the Houses in the Service or execution of a
legal process, civil or criminal, against a Member.

USE OF HANDCUFFS

22. There is no privilege specifically exempting a Member of Parliament, who is under

arrest on a criminal charge, from being handcuffed. The Committee of Privileges of Fifth
Lok Sabha in their Nineteenth Report presented to the House on 31st August, 1976, have
observed that the instructions regarding handcuffing of prisoners by the Union Ministry
of Home Affairs from time to time should be strictly and scrupulously followed by all the
authorities concerned of that State Governments and Union Territory Administrations and
there should ordinarily be no occasion to handcuff prisoners such as Members of
Parliament, Members of State Legislatures, peaceful satyagrahis, persons occupying good
positions in public life and professionals like jurists, journalists, doctors, writers and
educationists.

POINTS OF PROPRIETY

23. In addition to privileges of Parliament, its Members and Committees, there are certain
parliamentary practices, usages and conventions which should be followed by the
members, and others. The violation of such parliamentary practices, usages and
conventions would not technically constitute a breach of privilege or contempt of the
House but such violation would be termed as 'impropriety'.

Some typical instances under this category are listed below which, however, are not
exhaustive:
Giving a premature publicity to various matters connected with the business of the House
is an act of impropriety but not a breach of privilege or contempt of the House.

If any statement is made on the floor of the House by a Member or Minister which
another Member believes to be untrue, incomplete or incorrect, it does not constitute a
breach of privilege. If an incorrect statement is made, there are other remedies by which
the issue can be decided. A breach of privilege can arise only when the Member or the
Minister makes a false statement or an incorrect statement wilfully, deliberately and
knowingly.

Leakage of budget proposals or official secrets does not form any basis for a breach of
privilege.

Statements made by Ministers at party meetings are not privileged.

No privilege of Parliament is involved if statements on matters of public interest are not

first made in the House and are made outside. Such actions are against conventions and
propriety but do not constitute any basis on which breach of privilege can he founded.

It is not a breach of privilege if documents intended for Members are circulated to the
Press and non-Members first, but such acts are deprecated.

Where the report of a Committee has been presented to the House, its publication by the
Press before copies of the report have been made available to Members, is undesirable,
but it is not a breach of privilege of the House.

No breach of privilege is involved if a member's speech has not been covered in full or
has been covered in a summary form in the Press or over the Radio or T.V. It is also not a
breach of privilege if a particular speech is not covered as adequately as other speeches,
or is not given prominence.

Non-implementation of an assurance given by a Minister on the floor of the House is

neither a breach of privilege nor a contempt of the House, for the process of
implementation of a policy matter is conditional on a number of factors contributing to
such policy.

No question of privilege is involved if letters of members are intercepted by censors

because censorship is provided under the law. Section 26 of the Post Office Act, 1898,
authorises censorship on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of
public safety or tranquility.

QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE AND WORKING OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

24. The procedure for dealing with questions of privilege is laid down in Rules 187 to
203 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha.

25. A question of privilege may be raised in the House only after obtaining the consent of
the Chairman. This has been made obligatory so that the time of the House is not taken
up by raising a matter which, on the face of it, is not admissible. A member who wishes
to raise a question of privilege is, therefore, required to give advance notice in writing to
the Secretary General.

26. The question whether a matter complained of, is actually a breach of privilege or
contempt of the House is entirely for the House to decide, as the House alone is the
master of its privileges. The Chairman, in giving his consent to the raising of a matter in
the House as a question of privilege, considers only whether there is a prima facie case
for further inquiry and whether it should be brought before the House. In giving his
consent, the Chairman is guided by the following conditions prescribed for the
admissibility of questions of privilege:

Not more than one question shall be raised at the same sitting;

the question shall be restricted to a specific matter of recent occurrence;

and

the matter requires the intervention of the House.

A question of privilege should thus be raised by a member at the earliest opportunity and
should require the interposition of the House.

27. The Chairman, before deciding whether the matter proposed to be raised as a question
of privilege requires the intervention of the House and whether he should give his consent
to the raising of the matter in the House, may give an opportunity to the person sought to
be incriminated to explain his case to the Chairman. When a member seeks to raise a
question of privilege against another member, the Chairman before giving his consent to
the raising of the matter in the House, always gives an opportunity to the Member
complained against to place before him or the House such facts as may be germane to the
matter. Likewise when a complaint is made against a Minister for making misleading
statements in the House or on other grounds, the Chairman invariably seeks the
comments of the Minister concerned before deciding whether a prima facie case exists or
not.

If a newspaper reports incorrectly the proceedings of the House or comments casting

reflections on the House or its members, the Chairman, in the first instance, gives an
opportunity to the editor of the newspaper to present his case before giving his consent to
the raising of a question of privilege in the House. The Chairman may withhold his
consent to raising a question of privilege after the editor of Press correspondent of the
newspaper concerned has expressed regrets or published a correction.
28. After the Chairman has given his consent to the raising of a matter in the House as a
question of privilege the member who tabled the notice has, when called by the
Chairman, to ask for leave of the House to raise the question of privilege. While asking
for such leave, the member concerned is permitted to make only a short statement
relevent to the question of privilege. If objection to leave being granted is taken, the
Chairman requests those members who are in favour of leave being granted to rise in
their places. If twenty five or more members rise accordingly, the House is deemed to
have granted leave to raise the matter and the Chairman declares that leave is granted;
otherwise the Chairman informs the member that he does not have the leave of the House
to raise the matter.

29. A question of privilege is accorded priority over other items in the List of Business.
Accordingly, leave to raise a question of privilege is asked for after the questions and
before other items in the order paper are taken up.

30. After leave is granted by the House for raising a question of privilege, the matter may
either be considered and decided, by the House itself, or it may be referred by the House,
on a motion made by any member, to the Committee of Privileges and the House defers
its judgement until the report of the Committee has been presented. However, in cases
where the House finds that the matter is too trivial or that the offender has already
tendered an adequate apology, the House itself disposes of the matter by deciding to
proceed no further in the matter.

The Chairman is empowered to refer, suo motu, any question of privilege or contempt to
the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report. In doing so, the
Chairman need not bring the matter before the House for consideration and decision as to
whether the matter be referred to the Committee.

The Committee of Privileges examines every question of privilege referred to it and

determines with reference to the facts of each case whether a breach of privilege is
involved and, if so, the nature of the breach, the circumstances leading to It and make
such recommendations as it may deem fit. The Committee of Privileges has the power to
send for persons, papers and records and can take evidence of the persons involved in the
matter and call for any documents concerning the question of privilege under
consideration the Committee in cases where the facts are in dispute, the Committee of
Privileges takes evidence of witness.

After the report of the Committee has been presented to the House, the Chairman or any
member of the Committee may move that the report be taken into consideration. After the
report is taken into consideration, the Chairman or any member of the Committee or any
other member may move that the House agrees or disagrees or agrees with amendments,
with the recommendations contained in the report. The motion that the report of the
Committee of Privileges be taken into consideration is given the same priority as is given
to a question of Privilege under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in Rajya Sabha. Further action is taken in accordance with the decisions of the
House on the report of the Committee.
 PROCEDURE WHEN A BREACH OF PRIVILEGE IS COMMITTED BY A MEMBER OF THE
OTHER HOUSE

32. In 1954 the Committees of Privileges of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha examined the
procedure which should be followed in cases where a breach of privilege or contempt of
the House was alleged to have been committed by a member of the other House. The
Committees after considering all aspects of the matter at their joint sittings outlined the
following procedure in such cases:-

(i) When a question of breach of privilege is raised in any House in which

a member officer or servant of the other House is involved, the Presiding
Officer shall refer the case to the Presiding Officer of the other House,
unless on hearing the member who raises the question or persuing any
document where the complaint is based on a document he is satisfied that
no breach of privilege has been committed or the matter is too trivial to be
taken notice of, in which case he may disallow the motion for breach of
privilege.

(ii) Upon the case being so referred, the Presiding Officer of the other
House shall deal with the matter in the same way as if it were a case of
breach of privilege of that House or of a member thereof.

(iii) The Presiding Officer shall thereafter communicate to the Presiding

Officer of the House where the question of privilege was originally raised
a report about the enquiry, if any and the action taken on the reference.

The Committee further observed that if the offending member, officer or servant tenders
an apology to the Presiding Officer of the House in which the question of privilege is
raised or the Presiding Officer of the other House to which the reference is made, no
further action in the matter may be taken after such apology is tendered.