Be rational about privileges

It is useful, in the context of the current debate about the freedom of the press, to revisit our struggle for independence and the role the...

It is useful, in the context of the current debate about the freedom of the press, to revisit our struggle for independence and the role the press played in that process.

It was no coincidence that both Lokmanya Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi were great writers and published their own newspapers. It was the sustained policy of the British Raj to censor and prevent newspapers from publishing articles and reports which condemned the actions of the government or supported the rising tide for independence.

Take the case of Bina Das, a freedom fighter who had fired on Stanley Jackson, the then governor of Bengal. During her trial, in her statement, she made it known that it was the repressive policies of the government in Bengal that had forced her hand. As expected, the whole thing was hushed up. Not a line of that statement, exposing the repression of the British government, appeared in the press. However, Das8217;s statement was read in the Central Legislative Assembly by a member. The question was whether the speech of the member that had contained the statement could be published. The government maintained that it could not. Sir B.L. Mitter, the then law member of the government of India, strongly condemned such publication.

Pandit Krishna Kanta Malaviya, while speaking on the criminal law amendment bill in the Central Legislative Assembly attacked the policy of the British government and tried to explain how it had been responsible for the morbid psychology that compelled young men and women to take to the cult of the bomb and the revolver. Sir Henry Craik, the then home minister, saw to it that not a single line of that speech came out in the press. Pandit Krishna Kanta Malaviya showed extraordinary courage and published the entire text of his speech in his own newspaper, Abhyudaya.

The government came down heavily upon him. He was not prosecuted but a security was demanded from his newspaper. The agitated members of the Central Legislative Assembly brought a censure motion against the government. The members forcefully argued that the privilege of the House was infringed. The then law member, Sir Nripendra Nath Sircar, asserted that the House had no privileges, contrary to general opinion. The debate led to a settlement and the dropping of action against Pandit Krishna Kanta Malaviya. Those were the days when legislators actually fought for the freedom of the press!

During the Constituent Assembly debate on Article 105, providing for privileges of legislators, several members felt that the reference to privileges enjoyed by the members of the House of Commons in our own constitution was not desirable and that it should instead be contained in a schedule listing such privileges.

Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar felt that it was difficult to enumerate all the privileges at that time. It was left to a subsequent act of Parliament to codify the privileges. One of the main grounds why privileges have not been codified in an act of Parliament is that such a law would be subject to fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution. Article 1051 expressly provides that freedom of speech in Parliament is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the rules and standing orders regulating parliamentary procedures.

Story continues below this ad

Undoubtedly our elected representatives perform an arduous and responsible task. They have to constantly reflect and mirror the hopes, aspirations and frustrations of the people. To enable them to perform these duties, the twin privileges of freedom of speech and freedom from arrest are conferred upon them under Articles 1051 and 1052.

One fails to understand why an MP/MLA should claim any other privilege. The best privilege an MP/MLA should claim is that she or he is a proud citizen of India. It shows how the VIP syndrome in our society has reached obnoxious levels. There is, for instance, no reason why our legislators should not stand in queues. How is their dignity enhanced by the Black Cats surrounding them? The blooming of the electronic media has made restrictions on the publication of Parliamentary proceedings redundant. Everybody watching a parliamentary session live on television would have seen and heard the objectionable portions even before the presiding officer expunges the offensive words from the record.

It is equally important and urgent for MPs to nullify the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the Jan Mukti Morcha case ruling that MPs who give bribes to other members for their votes are liable for punishment under the criminal law, but not the bribe takers who vote after taking such bribes.

The writer is a former MP