jbp123/hello · Datasets at Hugging Face

instruction stringlengths 1 84	input stringlengths 1 85	output stringlengths 1 83
arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment and release of a	member.	6. It can institute inquiries and order the attendance of
witnesses and send for relevant papers and records.	7. The courts are prohibited to inquire into the proceedings of a	House or its committees.
8. No person (either a member or outsider) can be arrested,	and no legal process (civil or criminal) can be served within	the precincts of the House without the permission of the
presiding officer.	Individual Privileges	The privileges belonging to the members individually are:
1. They cannot be arrested during the session of Parliament	and 40 days before the beginning and 40 days after the end	of a session. This privilege is available only in civil cases
and not in criminal cases or preventive detention cases.	2. They have freedom of speech in Parliament. No member is	liable to any proceedings in any court for anything said or
any vote given by him in Parliament or its committees. This	freedom is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and	to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of
Parliament.26	3. They are exempted from jury service. They can refuse to	give evidence and appear as a witness in a case pending in
“When any individual or authority disregards or attacks any of	the privileges, rights and immunities, either of the member	individually or of the House in its collective capacity, the offence
is termed as breach of privilege and is punishable by the	House.”27	Any act or omission which obstructs a House of Parliament, its
member or its officer in the performance of their functions or which	has a tendency, directly or indirectly to produce results against the	dignity, authority and honour of the House is treated as a
contempt of the House.28	Though the two phrases, ‘breach of privilege’ and ‘contempt of	the House’ are used interchangeably, they have different
implications. ‘Normally, a breach of privilege may amount to	contempt of the House. Likewise, contempt of the House may	include a breach of privilege also. Contempt of the House,
however, has wider implications. There may be a contempt of the	House without specifically committing a breach of privilege’.29	Similarly, ‘actions which are not breaches of any specific privilege
but are offences against the dignity and authority of the House	amount to contempt of the House’.30 For example, disobedience	to a legitimate order of the House is not a breach of privilege, but
can be punished as contempt of the House.	Sources of Privileges	Originally, the Constitution (Article 105) expressedly mentioned
two privileges, that is, freedom of speech in Parliament and right	of publication of its proceedings. With regard to other privileges, it	provided that they were to be the same as those of the British
House of Commons, its committees and its members on the date	of its commencement (ie, 26 January, 1950), until defined by	Parliament. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 provided that the
other privileges of each House of Parliament, its committees and	its members are to be those which they had on the date of its	commencement (ie, 20 June, 1979), until defined by Parliament.
This means that the position with regard to other privileges	remains same. In other words, the amendment has made only	verbal changes by dropping a direct reference to the British House
of Commons, without making any change in the implication of the	provision.31	It should be noted here that the Parliament, till now, has not
made any special law to exhaustively codify all the privileges.	They are based on five sources, namely,	1. Constitutional provisions,
2. Various laws made by Parliament,	3. Rules of both the Houses,	4. Parliamentary conventions, and
SOVEREIGNTY OF PARLIAMENT	The doctrine of ‘sovereignty of Parliament’ is associated with the	British Parliament. Sovereignty means the supreme power within
the State. That supreme power in Great Britain lies with the	Parliament. There are no ‘legal’ restrictions on its authority and	jurisdiction.
Therefore, the sovereignty of Parliament (parliamentary	supremacy) is a cardinal feature of the British constitutional	system. According to AV Dicey, the British jurist, this principle has
three implications:32	1. The Parliament can make, amend, substitute or repeal any	law. De Lolme, a British political analyst, said, ‘The British
Parliament can do every thing except make a woman a man	and a man a woman’.	2. The Parliament can make constitutional laws by the same
procedure as ordinary laws. In other words, there is no legal	distinction between the constituent authority and the	legislative authority of the British Parliament.
3. The Parliamentary laws cannot be declared invalid by the	Judiciary as being unconstitutional. In other words, there is	no system of judicial review in Britain.
The Indian Parliament, on the other hand, cannot be regarded	as a sovereign body in the similar sense as there are ‘legal’	restrictions on its authority and jurisdiction. The factors that limit
the sovereignty of Indian Parliament are:	1. Written Nature of the Constitution	The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land in our country.
It has defined the authority and jurisdiction of all the three organs	of the Union government and the nature of interrelationship	between them. Hence, the Parliament has to operate within the
limits prescribed by the Constitution. There is also a legal	distinction between the legislative authority and the constituent	authority of the Parliament. Moreover, to effect certain
states is also required. In Britain, on the other hand, the	Constitution is neither written nor there is anything like a	fundamental law of the land.
2. Federal System of Government	India has a federal system of government with a constitutional	division of powers between the Union and the states. Both have to
operate within the spheres allotted to them. Hence, the law-	making authority of the Parliament gets confined to the subjects	enumerated in the Union List and Concurrent List and does not
extend to the subjects enumerated in the State List (except in five	abnormal circumstances and that too for a short period). Britain,	on the other hand, has a unitary system of government and
hence, all the powers are vested in the Centre.	3. System of Judicial Review	The adoption of an independent Judiciary with the power of
judicial review also restricts the supremacy of our Parliament.	Both the Supreme Court and high courts can declare the laws	enacted by the Parliament as void and ultra vires
(unconstitutional), if they contravene any provision of the	Constitution. On the other hand, there is no system of judicial	review in Britain. The British Courts have to apply the
Parliamentary laws to specific cases, without examining their	constitutionality, legality or reasonableness.	4. Fundamental Rights
The authority of the Parliament is also restricted by the	incorporation of a code of justiciable fundamental rights under	Part III of the Constitution. Article 13 prohibits the State from
making a law that either takes away totally or abrogates in part a	fundamental right. Hence, a Parliamentary law that contravenes	the fundamental rights shall be void. In Britain, on the other hand,
there is no codification of justiciable fundamental rights in the	Constitution. The British Parliament has also not made any law	that lays down the fundamental rights of the citizens. However, it
does not mean that the British citizens do not have rights. Though	there is no charter guaranteeing rights, there is maximum liberty in	Britain due to the existence of the Rule of Law.
Therefore, even though the nomenclature and organisational	pattern of our Parliament is similar to that of the British	Parliament, there is a substantial difference between the two. The
Indian Parliament is not a sovereign body in the sense in which	the British Parliament is a sovereign body. Unlike the British	Parliament, the authority and jurisdiction of the Indian Parliament
are defined, limited and restrained.	In this regard, the Indian Parliament is similar to the American	Legislature (known as Congress). In USA also, the sovereignty of
Congress is legally restricted by the written character of the	Constitution, the federal system of government, the system of	judicial review and the Bill of Rights.
Table 22.5 Allocation of Seats in Parliament for States and Union	Territories (2019)	S.No. States/UTs No. of Seats No. of
in Rajya Seats in	Sabha Lok	Sabha
I. States	1. Andhra Pradesh 11 25	2. Arunachal Pradesh 1 2
3. Assam 7 14	4. Bihar 16 40	5. Chhattisgarh 5 11
6. Goa 1 2	7. Gujarat 11 26	8. Haryana 5 10
11. Karnataka 12 28	12. Kerala 9 20	13. Madhya Pradesh 11 29
14. Maharashtra 19 48	15. Manipur 1 2	16. Meghalaya 1 2
17. Mizoram 1 1	18. Nagaland 1 1	19. Odisha 10 21
20. Punjab 7 13	21. Rajasthan 10 25	22. Sikkim 1 1
23. Tamil Nadu 18 39	24. Telangana 7 17	25. Tripura 1 2
26. Uttarakhand 3 5	27. Uttar Pradesh 31 80	28. West Bengal 16 42
II. Union Territories	1. Andaman and Nicobar – 1	Islands
2. Chandigarh – 1	3. Dadra and Nagar Haveli – 1	4. Daman and Diu – 1
5. Delhi (The National 3 7	Capital Territory of Delhi)	6. Lakshadweep – 1
9 Ladakh – 1	III. Nominated members 12 2	Total 245 545
Table 22.6 Seats Reserved for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha	(2019)	Name of the State/Union Total Reserved Reserved for
Territory for the the	Scheduled Scheduled	Castes Tribes
I. STATES:	1. Andhra Pradesh 25 4 1	2. Arunachal 2 – –
Pradesh	3. Assam 14 1 2	4. Bihar 40 6 –
5. Chhattisgarh 11 1 4	6. Goa 2 – –	7. Gujarat 26 2 4
8. Haryana 10 2 –	9. Himachal 4 1 –	Pradesh
10. Jharkhand 14 1 5	11. Karnataka 28 5 2	12. Kerala 20 2 –
13. Madhya Pradesh 29 4 6	14. Maharashtra 48 5 4	15. Manipur 2 – 1
18. Nagaland 1 – –	19. Odisha 21 3 5	20. Punjab 13 4 –
21. Rajasthan 25 4 3	22. Sikkim 1 – –	23. Tamil Nadu 39 7 –
24. Telangana 17 3 2	25. Tripura 2 – 1	26. Uttarakhand 5 1 –
27. Uttar Pradesh 80 17 –	28. West Bengal 42 10 2	II. UNION TERRITORIES:
1. Andaman and 1 – –	Nicobar Islands	2. Chandigarh 1 – –
3. Dadra and 1 – 1	Nagar Haveli	4. Daman and Diu 1 – –
5. Delhi (The 7 1 –	National Capital	Territory of Delhi)
6. Lakshadweep 1 – 1	7. Puducherry 1 – –	8. Jammu and 5 – –
Kashmir	9. Ladakh 1 – –	Total 543 84 47
Lok Sabha Duration Remarks	First 1952–1957 Dissolved 38 days before expiry of	its term.
Second 1957–1962 Dissolved 40 days before expiry of	its term.	Third 1962–1967 Dissolved 44 days before expiry of
its term.	Fourth 1967–1970 Dissolved one year and 79 days	before expiry of its term.
Fifth 1971–1977 Term of the Lok Sabha was	extended two times by one year at	a time. However, the House was
dissolved after having been in	existence for a period of five years,	10 months and six days.
Sixth 1977–1979 Dissolved after having been in	existence for a period of two years,	four months and 28 days.
Seventh 1980–1984 Dissolved 20 days before expiry of	its term.	Eighth 1985–1989 Dissolved 48 days before expiry of
its term.	Ninth 1989–1991 Dissolved after having been in	existence for a period of one year,
two months and 25 days.	Tenth 1991–1996 –	Eleventh 1996–1997 Dissolved after having been in
existence for a period of one year,	six months and 13 days.	Twelfth 1998–1999 Dissolved after having been in
existence for a period of one year,	one month and four days.	Thirteenth 1999–2004 Dissolved 253 days before expiry of
Fourteenth 2004–2009 –	Fifteenth 2009–2014 –	Sixteenth 2014–2019 –
Seventeenth 2019- –	Continuing	Table 22.8 Speakers of the Lok Sabha (from First Lok Sabha to
Present Lok Sabha)	Lok Sabha Name Tenure (Remarks)	First 1. Ganesh Vasudev 1952 to 1956 (Died)
Mavalanker	2. Ananthasayanam 1956 to 1957	Ayyangar
Second Ananthasayanam Ayyangar 1957 to 1962	Third Hukum Singh 1962 to 1967	Fourth 1. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy 1967 to 1969
(Resigned)	2. Gurdial Singh Dhillan 1969 to 1971	Fifth 1. Gurdial Singh Dhillan 1971 to 1975
(Resigned)	2. Bali Ram Bhagat 1976 to 1977	Sixth 1. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy 1977 to 1977

arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment and release of a

member.

6. It can institute inquiries and order the attendance of

witnesses and send for relevant papers and records.

7. The courts are prohibited to inquire into the proceedings of a

House or its committees.

8. No person (either a member or outsider) can be arrested,

and no legal process (civil or criminal) can be served within

the precincts of the House without the permission of the

presiding officer.

Individual Privileges

The privileges belonging to the members individually are:

1. They cannot be arrested during the session of Parliament

and 40 days before the beginning and 40 days after the end

of a session. This privilege is available only in civil cases

and not in criminal cases or preventive detention cases.

2. They have freedom of speech in Parliament. No member is

liable to any proceedings in any court for anything said or

any vote given by him in Parliament or its committees. This

freedom is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and

to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of

Parliament.26

3. They are exempted from jury service. They can refuse to

give evidence and appear as a witness in a case pending in

“When any individual or authority disregards or attacks any of

the privileges, rights and immunities, either of the member

individually or of the House in its collective capacity, the offence

is termed as breach of privilege and is punishable by the

House.”27

Any act or omission which obstructs a House of Parliament, its

member or its officer in the performance of their functions or which

has a tendency, directly or indirectly to produce results against the

dignity, authority and honour of the House is treated as a

contempt of the House.28

Though the two phrases, ‘breach of privilege’ and ‘contempt of

the House’ are used interchangeably, they have different

implications. ‘Normally, a breach of privilege may amount to

contempt of the House. Likewise, contempt of the House may

include a breach of privilege also. Contempt of the House,

however, has wider implications. There may be a contempt of the

House without specifically committing a breach of privilege’.29

Similarly, ‘actions which are not breaches of any specific privilege

but are offences against the dignity and authority of the House

amount to contempt of the House’.30 For example, disobedience

to a legitimate order of the House is not a breach of privilege, but

can be punished as contempt of the House.

Sources of Privileges

Originally, the Constitution (Article 105) expressedly mentioned

two privileges, that is, freedom of speech in Parliament and right

of publication of its proceedings. With regard to other privileges, it

provided that they were to be the same as those of the British

House of Commons, its committees and its members on the date

of its commencement (ie, 26 January, 1950), until defined by

Parliament. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 provided that the

other privileges of each House of Parliament, its committees and

its members are to be those which they had on the date of its

commencement (ie, 20 June, 1979), until defined by Parliament.

This means that the position with regard to other privileges

remains same. In other words, the amendment has made only

verbal changes by dropping a direct reference to the British House

of Commons, without making any change in the implication of the

provision.31

It should be noted here that the Parliament, till now, has not

made any special law to exhaustively codify all the privileges.

They are based on five sources, namely,

1. Constitutional provisions,

2. Various laws made by Parliament,

3. Rules of both the Houses,

4. Parliamentary conventions, and

SOVEREIGNTY OF PARLIAMENT

The doctrine of ‘sovereignty of Parliament’ is associated with the

British Parliament. Sovereignty means the supreme power within

the State. That supreme power in Great Britain lies with the

Parliament. There are no ‘legal’ restrictions on its authority and

jurisdiction.

Therefore, the sovereignty of Parliament (parliamentary

supremacy) is a cardinal feature of the British constitutional

system. According to AV Dicey, the British jurist, this principle has

three implications:32

1. The Parliament can make, amend, substitute or repeal any

law. De Lolme, a British political analyst, said, ‘The British

Parliament can do every thing except make a woman a man

and a man a woman’.

2. The Parliament can make constitutional laws by the same

procedure as ordinary laws. In other words, there is no legal

distinction between the constituent authority and the

legislative authority of the British Parliament.

3. The Parliamentary laws cannot be declared invalid by the

Judiciary as being unconstitutional. In other words, there is

no system of judicial review in Britain.

The Indian Parliament, on the other hand, cannot be regarded

as a sovereign body in the similar sense as there are ‘legal’

restrictions on its authority and jurisdiction. The factors that limit

the sovereignty of Indian Parliament are:

1. Written Nature of the Constitution

The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land in our country.

It has defined the authority and jurisdiction of all the three organs

of the Union government and the nature of interrelationship

between them. Hence, the Parliament has to operate within the

limits prescribed by the Constitution. There is also a legal

distinction between the legislative authority and the constituent

authority of the Parliament. Moreover, to effect certain

states is also required. In Britain, on the other hand, the

Constitution is neither written nor there is anything like a

fundamental law of the land.

2. Federal System of Government

India has a federal system of government with a constitutional

division of powers between the Union and the states. Both have to

operate within the spheres allotted to them. Hence, the law-

making authority of the Parliament gets confined to the subjects

enumerated in the Union List and Concurrent List and does not

extend to the subjects enumerated in the State List (except in five

abnormal circumstances and that too for a short period). Britain,

on the other hand, has a unitary system of government and

hence, all the powers are vested in the Centre.

3. System of Judicial Review

The adoption of an independent Judiciary with the power of

judicial review also restricts the supremacy of our Parliament.

Both the Supreme Court and high courts can declare the laws

enacted by the Parliament as void and ultra vires

(unconstitutional), if they contravene any provision of the

Constitution. On the other hand, there is no system of judicial

review in Britain. The British Courts have to apply the

Parliamentary laws to specific cases, without examining their

constitutionality, legality or reasonableness.

4. Fundamental Rights

The authority of the Parliament is also restricted by the

incorporation of a code of justiciable fundamental rights under

Part III of the Constitution. Article 13 prohibits the State from

making a law that either takes away totally or abrogates in part a

fundamental right. Hence, a Parliamentary law that contravenes

the fundamental rights shall be void. In Britain, on the other hand,

there is no codification of justiciable fundamental rights in the

Constitution. The British Parliament has also not made any law

that lays down the fundamental rights of the citizens. However, it

does not mean that the British citizens do not have rights. Though

there is no charter guaranteeing rights, there is maximum liberty in

Britain due to the existence of the Rule of Law.

Therefore, even though the nomenclature and organisational

pattern of our Parliament is similar to that of the British

Parliament, there is a substantial difference between the two. The

Indian Parliament is not a sovereign body in the sense in which

the British Parliament is a sovereign body. Unlike the British

Parliament, the authority and jurisdiction of the Indian Parliament

are defined, limited and restrained.

In this regard, the Indian Parliament is similar to the American

Legislature (known as Congress). In USA also, the sovereignty of

Congress is legally restricted by the written character of the

Constitution, the federal system of government, the system of

judicial review and the Bill of Rights.

Table 22.5 Allocation of Seats in Parliament for States and Union

Territories (2019)

S.No. States/UTs No. of Seats No. of

in Rajya Seats in

Sabha Lok

Sabha

I. States

1. Andhra Pradesh 11 25

2. Arunachal Pradesh 1 2

3. Assam 7 14

4. Bihar 16 40

5. Chhattisgarh 5 11

6. Goa 1 2

7. Gujarat 11 26

8. Haryana 5 10

11. Karnataka 12 28

12. Kerala 9 20

13. Madhya Pradesh 11 29

14. Maharashtra 19 48

15. Manipur 1 2

16. Meghalaya 1 2

17. Mizoram 1 1

18. Nagaland 1 1

19. Odisha 10 21

20. Punjab 7 13

21. Rajasthan 10 25

22. Sikkim 1 1

23. Tamil Nadu 18 39

24. Telangana 7 17

25. Tripura 1 2

26. Uttarakhand 3 5

27. Uttar Pradesh 31 80

28. West Bengal 16 42

II. Union Territories

1. Andaman and Nicobar – 1

Islands

2. Chandigarh – 1

3. Dadra and Nagar Haveli – 1

4. Daman and Diu – 1

5. Delhi (The National 3 7

Capital Territory of Delhi)

6. Lakshadweep – 1

9 Ladakh – 1

III. Nominated members 12 2

Total 245 545

Table 22.6 Seats Reserved for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha

(2019)

Name of the State/Union Total Reserved Reserved for

Territory for the the

Scheduled Scheduled

Castes Tribes

I. STATES:

1. Andhra Pradesh 25 4 1

2. Arunachal 2 – –

Pradesh

3. Assam 14 1 2

4. Bihar 40 6 –

5. Chhattisgarh 11 1 4

6. Goa 2 – –

7. Gujarat 26 2 4

8. Haryana 10 2 –

9. Himachal 4 1 –

Pradesh

10. Jharkhand 14 1 5

11. Karnataka 28 5 2

12. Kerala 20 2 –

13. Madhya Pradesh 29 4 6

14. Maharashtra 48 5 4

15. Manipur 2 – 1

18. Nagaland 1 – –

19. Odisha 21 3 5

20. Punjab 13 4 –

21. Rajasthan 25 4 3

22. Sikkim 1 – –

23. Tamil Nadu 39 7 –

24. Telangana 17 3 2

25. Tripura 2 – 1

26. Uttarakhand 5 1 –

27. Uttar Pradesh 80 17 –

28. West Bengal 42 10 2

II. UNION TERRITORIES:

1. Andaman and 1 – –

Nicobar Islands

2. Chandigarh 1 – –

3. Dadra and 1 – 1

Nagar Haveli

4. Daman and Diu 1 – –

5. Delhi (The 7 1 –

National Capital

Territory of Delhi)

6. Lakshadweep 1 – 1

7. Puducherry 1 – –

8. Jammu and 5 – –

Kashmir

9. Ladakh 1 – –

Total 543 84 47

Lok Sabha Duration Remarks

First 1952–1957 Dissolved 38 days before expiry of

its term.

Second 1957–1962 Dissolved 40 days before expiry of

its term.

Third 1962–1967 Dissolved 44 days before expiry of

its term.

Fourth 1967–1970 Dissolved one year and 79 days

before expiry of its term.

Fifth 1971–1977 Term of the Lok Sabha was

extended two times by one year at

a time. However, the House was

dissolved after having been in

existence for a period of five years,

10 months and six days.

Sixth 1977–1979 Dissolved after having been in

existence for a period of two years,

four months and 28 days.

Seventh 1980–1984 Dissolved 20 days before expiry of

its term.

Eighth 1985–1989 Dissolved 48 days before expiry of

its term.

Ninth 1989–1991 Dissolved after having been in

existence for a period of one year,

two months and 25 days.

Tenth 1991–1996 –

Eleventh 1996–1997 Dissolved after having been in

existence for a period of one year,

six months and 13 days.

Twelfth 1998–1999 Dissolved after having been in

existence for a period of one year,

one month and four days.

Thirteenth 1999–2004 Dissolved 253 days before expiry of

Fourteenth 2004–2009 –

Fifteenth 2009–2014 –

Sixteenth 2014–2019 –

Seventeenth 2019- –

Continuing

Table 22.8 Speakers of the Lok Sabha (from First Lok Sabha to

Present Lok Sabha)

Lok Sabha Name Tenure (Remarks)

First 1. Ganesh Vasudev 1952 to 1956 (Died)

Mavalanker

2. Ananthasayanam 1956 to 1957

Ayyangar

Second Ananthasayanam Ayyangar 1957 to 1962

Third Hukum Singh 1962 to 1967

Fourth 1. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy 1967 to 1969

(Resigned)

2. Gurdial Singh Dhillan 1969 to 1971

Fifth 1. Gurdial Singh Dhillan 1971 to 1975

(Resigned)

2. Bali Ram Bhagat 1976 to 1977

Sixth 1. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy 1977 to 1977