Look whos talking

A flurry of privilege notices have been filed in the two Houses of Parliament. Cutting across party lines,MPs have served notice against former cop Kiran Bedi and actor Om Puri for lampooning MPs in the closing,high-pitched hours of Anna Hazares occupation of Delhis Ramlila Maidan. The process of moving on such notices can be a long-winded one,and for now Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar and Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson K. Rahman Khan say that the pleas are under their consideration. MPs say they are outraged at Puri and Bedis derogatory and defamatory chatter. In fact,Puri has already regretted using those words that may have hurt some sentiments. But the issue is not the content of the wild remarks (and there is no denying the unreason that informed the anti-politician tirades). What is of concern is the illiberal and undemocratic tenor of the parliamentarians notices.

Privileges are aimed at securing the independence of Parliament to fulfil its multifunctional role. They derive from the struggle during the English civil war to free Parliament from the clutch and influence of the monarch,in essence to enable MPs to freely dispense their essential role as representatives of the people. For the most part,legislatures such as ours that are modelled on the Westminster template are arbiters of their own privileges and in varying degrees different parliamentary democracies have moved to codify them. Our Parliament has yet to do so,but the reason that underwrites some of the claimed privileges is clear. For instance,MPs enjoy freedom of speech during debates and question time on the floor of the House,without fear of legal action and they must continue to do so. Yet,just as the assertion of privilege was historically crucial in establishing democracy,so has the ceding of many privileges,now that Parliaments place is secure,been a way of modernising legislatures.

Without second-guessing which way the presiding officers of the two Houses will decide,the charge that comments made by two random individuals have caused affront to Parliament is extremely thin to justify privilege proceedings. If individual MPs feel defamed,they have the right to legal action,just like any other citizen. But to use Parliaments extraordinary powers to inhibit free,and howsoever outrageous,speech outside is undemocratic in the extreme and would only undermine Parliament. It would amount to invoking Parliaments privileges to claim lese majeste protection.