What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

They may ask whether parliamentary rules can override constitutional provisions (they cannot) or confuse Article 105 with Article 19 (fundamental right to freedom of speech for citizens). Another trap is mixing up the powers of expulsion (removing a member) with expunction (removing words from record).

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Legal Point: Article 105 of the Constitution 2. Target this Procedural Rule: Rule 380 of Lok Sabha Rules 3. Target this Restriction: Article 121 on discussion of judges

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 6 of 25

Article 105 Guarantees MPs' Freedom of Speech in Parliament, Subject to Rules and Article 121 Restrictions

Q: Which article of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech to Members of Parliament?

Article 105, Article 105 of the Constitution specifically deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of MPs, including freedom of speech in Parliament. Article 19 guarantees freedom of speech to citizens, Article 121 restricts discussion on judges, and Article 356 deals with President's Rule.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding freedom of speech of MPs: 1. It is guaranteed by Article 105 and is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the rules of the House. 2. Rule 380 of the Lok Sabha Rules permits the Speaker to expunge entire paragraphs if they are found to be defamatory. 3. Article 121 prohibits any discussion in Parliament on the conduct of a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Only 1, Statement 1 is correct as per Article 105. Statement 2 is incorrect because Rule 380 permits expunging only the offending word, not entire sentences or paragraphs. Statement 3 is incorrect; Article 121 prohibits discussion except when a motion for the removal of the judge is being considered.

Q: As per the parliamentary rules mentioned in the article, which rule specifically grants the Speaker the power to expunge unparliamentary words from the proceedings?

Rule 380, The article explicitly mentions Rule 380 as the rule that permits the Speaker to expunge words that are unparliamentary, defamatory, indecent, or undignified from the official records. The other rule numbers are distractors.

Q: What is the primary constitutional rationale behind guaranteeing freedom of speech to MPs in Parliament, as discussed in the article?

To enable the Legislature to perform its role effectively through free and fearless expression., The article cites Erskine May, stating these privileges are indispensable for the smooth functioning of the legislature, and that only free, frank, and fearless expression enables Parliament to perform its role. The other options are either incorrect or contrary to the constitutional principle discussed.

PolityCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCSSC GATeachingPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

22 Feb 2026

~2 min

Source: The Hindu

Key Data:Article 105Rule 380Article 121

Bodies:ParliamentSupreme Court

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.Article 105 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech to MPs in Parliament, subject to its provisions and House rules.

2.Rule 380 allows the Speaker to expunge 'unparliamentary' words, but concerns arise over its broad application potentially infringing on Article 105 rights.

3.The article underscores the principle that parliamentary rules must not eclipse the constitutional right, a key point for examiner focus on checks and balances.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The article examines the constitutional balance between MPs' freedom of speech under Article 105 and the parliamentary rules that regulate it, such as Rule 380 on expunction. It highlights a current tension where expansive use of expunction powers is seen as stifling debate, infringing on the core parliamentary privilege essential for a functional legislature. For exam aspirants, this is a critical Polity topic testing the interplay between constitutional rights and procedural rules.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Constitutional ArticleArticle 105

Expunction RuleRule 380

Restriction ArticleArticle 121

1-Minute Revision

›Constitutional Article: Article 105
›Expunction Rule: Rule 380
›Target this Legal Point: Article 105 of the Constitution
›Target this Procedural Rule: Rule 380 of Lok Sabha Rules
›Target this Restriction: Article 121 on discussion of judges

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Article 105 Privilege

The Constitution guarantees MPs freedom of speech in Parliament, a privilege indispensable for legislative functioning.

🔇

Rule 380 Expunction

Parliamentary rules allow the Speaker to expunge unparliamentary words, but concerns exist about overuse stifling debate.

⚠️

Constitutional Balance

The core issue is ensuring House rules regulate proceedings without overriding the fundamental right under Article 105.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Freedom of speech for MPs is a foundational privilege in a parliamentary democracy, derived from the British model and codified in India's Constitution under Article 105. It is designed to ensure free, frank, and fearless debate, allowing the legislature to hold the executive accountable. Historical precedents, like Prime Minister Nehru's respect for opposition speeches, established norms for government-opposition relations.

Core Analysis & Implications

The tension lies between Article 105's guarantee and the regulatory power under rules like Rule 380 (expunction) and Article 121 (restriction on discussing judges). While rules against defamatory or indecent language are necessary for decorum, their weaponization to delete large portions of speeches undermines the privilege itself. The Supreme Court's principle that restrictions should not eclipse the right applies here. This creates a governance challenge: preserving parliamentary dignity without enabling the majority to silence critical opposition voices.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The solution requires presiding officers to exercise expunction powers judiciously, removing only offending words, not entire arguments. A return to normative practices emphasizing mutual forbearance between government and opposition, as highlighted by constitutional expert Ivor Jennings, is crucial. Institutional respect for the Opposition's role to criticize is non-negotiable for a healthy democracy, and any move towards disqualification of members for speech would be ultra vires of Parliament's powers.

Key Facts at a Glance

Constitutional ArticleArticle 105

Expunction RuleRule 380

Restriction ArticleArticle 121

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which article of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech to Members of Parliament?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements regarding freedom of speech of MPs:

1. It is guaranteed by Article 105 and is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the rules of the House.

2. Rule 380 of the Lok Sabha Rules permits the Speaker to expunge entire paragraphs if they are found to be defamatory.

3. Article 121 prohibits any discussion in Parliament on the conduct of a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC

As per the parliamentary rules mentioned in the article, which rule specifically grants the Speaker the power to expunge unparliamentary words from the proceedings?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

What is the primary constitutional rationale behind guaranteeing freedom of speech to MPs in Parliament, as discussed in the article?

All 25 MCQs ▸

Read original article from The Hindu

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →

PreviousSupreme Court's 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla Judgment Directions Deemed 'Unmanageable', CJI Advocates Individual Case Approach Next Supreme Court Bans Unproven Stem Cell Therapy for Autism, Sets Precedent for Regulating Novel Treatments

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

Govt to SC: Only Parliament Can Extend Creamy Layer to SC/ST; Cites Article 341, E V Chinnaiah Case

The government has told the Supreme Court that extending the creamy layer principle to SC/ST is a policy decision for Parliament alone. This reaffirms that reservation for SC/ST is based on historical social criteria, not just economic status, and the creamy layer concept currently applies only to OBCs.

Polity Current Affairs

Patna HC Rules Religious Freedom Under Article 25 Subject to Public Order and Morality

Patna High Court holds that the right to profess and practise religion under Article 25 is not absolute and can be restricted for public order, morality, and health. This reiterates the essential religious practices doctrine and clarifies that constitutional protection does not extend to every mode of exercise. A plea for 300 devotees in a religious procession in Siwan, Bihar, was dismissed citing past law-and-order incidents.

Polity Current Affairs

Parliament Increases Supreme Court Judges Strength from 34 to 38 via Amendment Bill, 2026

Parliament has increased the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges (including CJI) for the first time since 2019. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed by Lok Sabha on August 3, 2026, replacing an ordinance. The move aims to address the growing backlog of cases in the apex court.

Polity Current Affairs

Parliament Passes Mines and Minerals Amendment Act 2026 Overriding SC Ruling, Extinguishes Rs 2 Lakh Cr Dues

The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026 restricts states from imposing specified levies on mineral rights and extinguishes ~Rs 2 lakh crore in unpaid dues. Mineral-rich states like Odisha and Jharkhand oppose it as a blow to federal fiscal autonomy, potentially losing thousands of crores annually. This reverses the financial impact of a landmark 2024 Supreme Court ruling that had empowered states to tax mineral-bearing lands.

Polity Current Affairs

Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 Invoked: Panel Finds Unexplained Cash at Justice Varma’s Residence, Report Tabled in Parliament

A three-member parliamentary inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 has found that former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma failed to explain the source of cash bundles discovered in his official residence after a fire. This is a rare invocation of the judicial removal mechanism, making it crucial for understanding the process of judicial accountability and the role of Parliament in the impeachment of judges.

Polity Current Affairs

Parliament Passes Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026: National Tribunals Commission, 5-Year Tenure After SC Directive

Parliament has passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, establishing a National Tribunals Commission and fixing tribunal members' tenure at five years. The law follows the Supreme Court's November 2025 judgment that struck down the 2021 Act, in a long-running tussle over tribunal independence and executive control.

Polity Current Affairs

Parliament Passes MMDR Amendment 2026 Restricting States' Levy Powers on Mineral Rights

Parliament has passed the Mines and Minerals (Amendment) Bill, 2026, limiting states' power to impose taxes on mineral rights, overriding a Supreme Court judgment that upheld such state powers. This move aims to boost investment certainty but has sparked concerns over fiscal federalism and state revenues, especially for mineral-rich states like Odisha, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Split Verdict on CEC/EC Appointment Act, 2023; Matter Referred to CJI for Constitution Bench

A two-judge Supreme Court bench has split on whether to refer the challenge to the CEC and ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to a five-judge Constitution Bench. With Justice Dipankar Datta disagreeing with Justice S C Sharma, the case now goes to the CJI for constituting a larger bench. For aspirants, this is a direct link to Article 324, the Anoop Baranwal verdict, and the independence of the Election Commission.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Article 105 Guarantees MPs' Freedom of Speech in Parliament, Subject to Rules and Article 121 Restrictions

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Article 105 Privilege

Rule 380 Expunction

Constitutional Balance

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance