MPs can say absolutely anything in Parliament, including outside the rules, with zero consequences.

Freedom of speech under Article 105(1) is expressly 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders' of Parliament, so the Speaker or House can still discipline members for violating internal rules.

Parliamentary privilege means MPs are immune from prosecution for bribery if the bribe was to cast a vote.

The Supreme Court in Sita Soren v. Union of India (2023) overruled the earlier P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment and held that taking a bribe to vote or speak a certain way is a separate crime not protected by Article 105(2).

Article 105 gives Parliament unlimited, undefined privileges forever.

Clause (3) says Parliament can define these privileges by law; until it does, the privileges are those that existed immediately before the 44th Amendment's Section 15 came into force in 1978, not some open-ended list.

The Constitution of India

Article 105

Powers, privileges, etc, of the Houses of Parliament and of the members and committees thereof

(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 any thing 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.§

Why this exists

Article 105 borrows from the British parliamentary tradition of 'freedom of speech and debate' in Parliament, a principle that dates back to the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The idea is that lawmakers must be able to speak candidly, criticize the government, and vote according to their conscience without fear of lawsuits or criminal cases dragging them to court for their legislative work. Without this shield, the executive or private parties could intimidate MPs into silence through litigation, weakening democratic debate and accountability.

How courts read it

In Keshav Singh's case (1965), the Supreme Court held that Parliamentary and state legislative privileges are not absolute and must yield to fundamental rights and the Constitution's basic structure, rejecting the idea that Houses of the legislature are beyond judicial review. In P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998), a majority of the Supreme Court controversially held that MPs who took bribes to vote in a specific way in a no-confidence motion were still protected under Article 105(2) because the immunity covered the act of voting itself. This was widely criticized. In Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007), the Court held that Parliament's power to expel members for misconduct (like the 'cash-for-query' scandal) is part of its privileges, and while courts can review such action, they will generally not interfere unless there is a clear constitutional violation. Most significantly, in Sita Soren v. Union of India (2023), a seven-judge Constitution Bench overruled the bribery-immunity part of P.V. Narasimha Rao, holding that accepting a bribe to speak or vote in a particular way is not protected by Article 105(2), since the bribery itself is a separate offence unconnected to the essential function of speech or voting.

Common misconceptions

Myth: MPs can say absolutely anything in Parliament, including outside the rules, with zero consequences.
Fact: Freedom of speech under Article 105(1) is expressly 'subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders' of Parliament, so the Speaker or House can still discipline members for violating internal rules.
Myth: Parliamentary privilege means MPs are immune from prosecution for bribery if the bribe was to cast a vote.
Fact: The Supreme Court in Sita Soren v. Union of India (2023) overruled the earlier P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment and held that taking a bribe to vote or speak a certain way is a separate crime not protected by Article 105(2).
Myth: Article 105 gives Parliament unlimited, undefined privileges forever.
Fact: Clause (3) says Parliament can define these privileges by law; until it does, the privileges are those that existed immediately before the 44th Amendment's Section 15 came into force in 1978, not some open-ended list.