Explanation:

• The freedom of speech available to the members on the floor of the House is different from that available to the citizens under Article 19(2).
• A law made under this article providing for reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech of the citizens would not circumscribe the freedom of speech of the members within the walls of the House. Members enjoy complete protection even though the words uttered by them in the House are malicious and false to their knowledge.
• This is expressed in constitutional provisions contained in Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 105 are thus a complete and conclusive code in respect of the privilege of freedom of speech and immunity from legal liability for anything said in the House or for publication of its reports.
• The right of freedom of speech in the House is, however, circumscribed by the constitutional provisions and the rules of procedure. When a member violates any of the rules, the Chair has ample powers conferred by the rules to deal with the situation.
• Hence courts have no jurisdiction to take action against a member for his speech made in the House even if it amounts to contempt of the court.
• The Committee of Privileges has, however, emphasised that a Member of Parliament does not enjoy unrestricted licence of speech within the walls of the House.