Sir Thomas Erskine May has characterized the expression Parliamentary benefits as takes after: The whole of the particular rights delighted in by every house all in all is a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by individuals from every place of parliament exclusively, without which they can't release their capacities, and which surpass those controlled by different bodies or people.
Article 105 of Constitution of India characterizes parliamentary benefits of …show more content…
Besides, the freedom of speech to which Article 105 (1) and (2) refer, would be available to a Member of Parliament when he attends the session of Parliament.
The only limitation arises from the words in Parliament, which means during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of business of Parliament. Once it was proved that Parliament was sitting and its business was transacted, anything said during the course of that business was immune from proceedings in any court.
In P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State it was held that the bribe givers can claim no immunity but bribe takers stand on different footing and the member who took the bribe and did not vote can also not claim immunity. The court was unanimous that the members of Parliament who gave bribes, or who took bribes but did not participate in the voting could not claim immunity from court proceeding's under Article 105 (2). The decision has invoked so much controversy and dissatisfaction that a review petition is pending in the