Urging Parliamentarians not to be sensitive to criticism, Team Anna member and lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Tuesday said parliamentary privileges were not grounds on which restrictions could be imposed on the fundamental right to free speech.
Facing breach of privilege notice for allegedly making derogatory remarks against some MPs during social activist Anna Hazare's anti-corruption campaign here, he suggested that MPs should reflect on why the public perception about them had come to be what it was and explore ways and means to improve the functioning of our democracy.
In a six-page reply to the notice, Mr. Bhushan held that MPs, through their behaviour in the recent past, had done no credit to themselves or to the institution of Parliament and that it was not only a fundamental right but the duty of every right-thinking citizen to draw attention to such unfortunate states of affairs.
Referring to frequent disruptions, passing of Bills without discussions or with few members in the House, assaults by members on one another, throwing of papers, microphones and even chairs and instances of members taking bribes for asking questions and even voting on important issues, he said: “It is a known fact that several MPs are in jail for serious offences and more than a 100 are facing charge sheets for various offences.”
“Reasonable restriction on this [fundamental right to free speech] can be imposed by Parliament in the interest of public order, defamation, contempt of court etc. However, parliamentary privileges are not grounds for any restriction to be imposed on the exercise of the right to free speech,” he said.
“I would like to say that whatever I have been saying about Parliament and its members and their conduct is either a statement of fact, or inferences derived from those facts or bona fide comments on those made by me in public interest and to improve the functioning of our democracy. I have been saying that though Parliament and its members have to make laws, they must do so by ascertaining wishes of those citizens they represent. If they think that having been elected once they have the licence to do as they please during their term and make laws and policies against the wishes of those they represent, and if they think they can do so even by taking bribes, then it is an incorrect understanding of democracy.”
Quoting a judicial interpretation of the Constitution, he said the concept of parliamentary privileges arose from the notion that Parliament must ensure that its members were not prevented or fettered from doing their duty and discharging their responsibilities as MPs.
Lamenting that even though Article 105 of the Constitution required Parliament to codify its privileges, he said it had not been done in the past 61 years.
