2011 · Paper III · 10 marks

"There is no constitutional basis to claim absolute immunity from parliamentary proceedings." – Explain with reference to leading cases.

In short

Articles 105 and 194 protect only speech and votes in the House and civil arrest immunity, so there is no constitutional basis for absolute immunity, as Keshav Singh (1965) and Raja Ram Pal (2007) affirmed. Sita Soren (2024) overruled PV Narasimha Rao (1998), denying immunity for bribery.

Model answer

Ghissu Editorial · Verified 4 Oct 2026 · 306 words

Introduction
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) clarified that absolute immunity from parliamentary proceedings is unconstitutional, overruling PV Narasimha Rao (1998) and emphasizing judicial review over legislative privileges. This judgment reaffirmed that legislative privileges must align with constitutional principles and cannot be used to shield criminal conduct.
Constitutional Provisions and Scope
•

Freedom from Arrest Limited

MPs enjoy protection from arrest only in civil cases during sessions, not in criminal cases or preventive detention, ensuring accountability. This limitation prevents misuse of privilege to evade criminal prosecution.

Judicial Interpretation and Limits
•

Two-fold Test for Immunity

Sita Soren (2024) introduced a test requiring privileges to relate to collective legislative functions and essential duties, restricting immunity to genuine parliamentary acts. This test prevents broad claims of immunity unrelated to legislative purposes.

•

Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights

Keshav Singh (1965) and Raja Ram Pal (2007) affirmed that privileges violating fundamental rights invite judicial intervention, preventing misuse. Courts maintain a constitutional balance by reviewing privileges that infringe on citizens’ rights.

Leading Cases
•

Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024)

Overruled PV Narasimha Rao (1998), denying immunity for bribery and reinforcing criminal law supremacy over parliamentary privileges. This landmark ruling marked a shift towards greater legislative accountability.

Way Forward
•

Codify Parliamentary Privileges

Legislation like Australia’s Parliamentary Privileges Act (1987) can define and limit privileges, enhancing transparency and preventing abuse. Clear statutory guidelines will help balance legislative independence with accountability.

Conclusion
Parliamentary immunity is constitutionally bounded, ensuring legislative freedom does not shield criminal conduct from judicial scrutiny. This balance upholds democratic accountability and the rule of law.

This model answer is indicative and the model can make mistakes; please verify key facts independently.

Practise this question

  1. 1Get the answer sheet

    Sized for this question.

  2. 2Write your answer

    Timed, by hand.

  3. 3Get it marked

    Your score and what to fix.

Share this questionWhatsAppTelegramXLinkedIn

This chapter in the exam

Parliament and State Legislatures13 questions

Asked in 8 of 8 sittings since 2008

2008
2
2011
2
2012
1
2016
1
2017
1
2020
2
2023
2
2025
2

Most tested: Comparative powers and status of the two Houses, especially Rajya Sabha vs Lok Sabha and Legislative Council vs Legislative Assembly.

All 13 questions, sorted by sub-topic, with model answers and practice.

Question from the official APPSC Group-I Mains 2011 paper. Answer written by Ghissu's engine and checked against our editorial standards. Found an error? Tell us and we correct it within 48 hours.

Ghissu

OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·
OUTWORK·
OUTTHINK·
MASTER THE SYSTEM·