ISSUE:
Whether the respondents to the suit have immunity for the statements made on the floor of the Parliament under clause (2) of Article 105 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the said immunity is against an alleged irregularity of procedure only and not against illegality?
What is the scope of the term “anything said” in Parliament as used in Article 105(2)? Does it encompass all statements, even if irrelevant to the topic under discussion?
What are the limitations of judicial oversight about parliamentary privileges, particularly in cases where individuals feel aggrieved by statements made in Parliament?
RULE:
Once it is proved that Parliament was sitting and its business was being transacted, anything said during that business is immune from proceedings in any court.
Judicial interference in parliamentary proceedings is not permissible. The role of courts is limited when it comes to matters of parliamentary privileges, as MPs should have the freedom to express themselves without fair litigation.
The term “anything said” in Parliament includes everything said during the transaction of parliamentary business. Irrelevant, undignified, or even unparliamentary statements are also covered by this immunity.