Tej Kiran Jain v. N. Sanjiva Reddy

The case explains how far Article 105(2) protects Members of Parliament for what they say in the House. In a Calling Attention discussion, strong words were used about the Shankaracharya’s speech on untouchability. Followers sued for defamation. The Supreme Court said the suit cannot lie. Why? Because “anything said” in Parliament, during its business, is fully immune from court proceedings. Control rests with House rules and the Speaker—not with courts.

1. Do MPs have immunity under Article 105(2) for statements made on the floor of the House?
2. Is the immunity limited to procedural irregularities or does it bar suits even for alleged illegality?
3. How wide is the phrase “anything said” in Parliament—does it include irrelevant or harsh remarks?
4. What are the limits on judicial oversight over parliamentary speech and privilege?

• Once Parliament is sitting and its business is being transacted, anything said during that business is immune from court proceedings.
• Judicial interference in parliamentary debates is not allowed. Freedom of speech in the House must be protected.
• “Anything said” includes all statements made during business—even if irrelevant, undignified, or unparliamentary. Discipline is internal to the House.

• Appeal dismissed. The suit cannot proceed in court.
• Scope: “Anything” is of the widest reach—equivalent to “everything” said during business.
• Limit: Only the words “in Parliament” limit the clause—meaning during a sitting and in the course of business.
• Control: Redress, if any, lies within parliamentary rules and the Speaker’s control, not in courts.

Article 105(2) grants absolute immunity to Members for anything said in Parliament during the transaction of business. The only boundary is that the speech must occur in Parliament and during its business. Courts cannot test or punish such speech; internal mechanisms of the House apply.

• Protects free and fearless debate inside Parliament.
• Draws a bright line between courtrooms and the House floor.
• Clarifies that remedy for offensive remarks is within parliamentary discipline.

Mnemonic: “HOUSE WORDS, COURT SHUT”

• HOUSE: Said in Parliament, during business.
• WORDS: Anything said = everything said.
• COURT SHUT: Courts cannot entertain suits; Speaker controls.

Issue: Are MPs legally immune for statements made on the floor of the House?

Rule: Article 105(2) — complete immunity for “anything said” in Parliament during business.

Application: Remarks were made in Lok Sabha during a Calling Attention discussion; thus covered by the clause.

Conclusion: Suit barred; court cannot examine or penalize such speech.

Article 105(2)

Constitutional clause giving MPs immunity for anything said or any vote in Parliament.

Calling Attention

A device to seek Minister’s reply on an urgent matter in the House.

House Discipline

Internal rules, Speaker’s control, and member conduct codes in Parliament.