Undefined and unbridled power of Parliament

A letter has been written to Robert Wadra to explain his comment about Parliament posted on the Facebook.
My interest is not in Wadra, who is strong enough not to need my help, but the poor people of the country who are exposed to Parliament's undefined, arbitrary and unbridled power to punish for the breach of its privilege.
The State Legislatures, too, have been armed with similar power and privilege.
In 1964, one Keshav Singh threw some leaflets in the UP Assembly and was sent to jail for the breach of the privilege of the house. He approached the High Court, which ordered his release on bail.
So incensed was the Assembly at the audacity of the concerned judges and the advocates that it issued a warrant to haul them up and produce them before the bar of the house. The scared judges filed a writ petition in the High Court to stay the execution of the warrant of arrest. The stay order was passed, and the police did not know whether to obey the Speaker of the Assembly and arrest the judges and others concerned or to obey the High Court and not to arrest them.
At this point the Union Government intervened and the President referred the question to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion, and the constitutional crisis was averted.
The apex court held that the judges do not breach the privilege of the Assembly by hearing a petition against the order of the Assembly in such cases (it is an oversimplified presentation).
Thus, the judges escaped the consequences of the fury of the Assembly.
The next story of the 'gain' and 'loss' is recent.
Since the Congress Party did not have a majority in the Lok Sabha when Narsinha Rao was Prime Minister, they resorted to bribery. Many M.P.s were given fifty lakh and more to vote for the government during the voting on a No Confidence motion.

Honourable as our M.P. are, they voted for the government and duly proved that they were honourable.
However, some people made an issue of it and an inquiry was held. It was established that barring one or two, the rest of the bribed M.P.s participated in the voting and voted for the party, which had paid them the bribe. Their prosecution commenced, and they approached the Supreme Court for relief.
The court rightly held that those who had received the bribe and participated in the Voting could not be prosecuted, but those who had taken the bribe but did not participate in the voting were liable to be prosecuted.
There is a reason for the Supreme Court to be compelled to give a verdict which appeared outrageous and perverted to the conscience of the society.
Art. 105 clearly provides that no member of Parliament was liable for any proceeding in any court for saying anything in the house or voting in any manner. Since the bribe taker M.P.s participated in the voting they were protected under Art.105 and could not be prosecuted, but those who did not participate in the voting remained unprotected and were liable for prosecution.

Does not it appear a case of 'an Andha Kanoon '(a blind law)?
So long as Parliament does not codify its privileges and powers vested in it under Art.105 of the Constitution, it will continue to be a trap for the citizens and a safe haven for the corrupt and criminal M.P.s. Hope I have not inadvertently committed the breach of any invisible and silent privilege.
Prabhakar sinha
National President of PUCL

Hastakshep