Introduction:-

The Constitution outlines a range of duties that Parliament members are responsible for. They have parliamentary privilege and immunity from specific procedures to ensure they are able to perform their duties without being hampered. This concept is based on the principle that parliamentarians must retain their dignity and authority. The idea of “privilege” refers to the granting or denying privileges or immunity to specific processes not open to the public. This privilege is given to ensure the smooth operation of the system. These privileges are not granted to any public member except where they serve the Parliament’s interests. All people are treated equally, and all their fundamental rights are protected. These privileges are granted when they act in an official capacity as a representative for a Member of Parliament. These privileges and immunities are granted to these members in court proceedings by Articles105 and 122.

There is a solution for every problem. These remedies help to prevent the recurrence or misuse of extraordinary legal remedies available to individuals against illegal for administrative purposes. They do not guarantee full restitution for the wronged. Private persons may not have access to the ordinary courts or other legal remedies due to certain privileges or immunities that are held by the state.

The following privileges are granted to the Government by statute:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Privileges and Immunities –

Section 80 (1) states that no suit can be filed against the Government or any public official for any act allegedly performed in their official capacity, unless two months have passed and written notice has been received in accordance to the section’s instructions. This clause is mandatory and does not allow exceptions. Notification is therefore required. The duty of notice can be waived if the public officer does not have authority to act. The purpose of the notice is to allow the Government or public official to consider their legal options and to resolve the dispute outside of Court.

A new clause (20) was added to Section 80 of C.P.C under the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act 1970 to minimize litigants’ hardships. This clause allows the Court to grant permission to a person to bring a suit against the Government, or any public officer, without giving notice for two months. The Court must first determine if the relief requested is urgent and immediate before granting the exemption.

Still remembered is that S.80 of C.P.C. A suit against a Statutory Corporation is not subject to S.80 of the C.P.C. If the claim is brought against the statutory Corporation, it will not apply. In these cases, notice against a Statutory Corporation is not required.

Section 80 does not apply to claims brought before the Motor Vehicle Act claim Tribunal.

A writ petition to the Government or a public officer is exempted from Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 82 C.P.C. The government privilege is also granted. Section 80 of C.P.C., Section 80 of the C.P.C., does not require that notice be given. This section says that a court case against the Government or public official must be filed within a specified period. The decree must be fulfilled within three months from the order date if the deadline still needs to be met. The Court must report the case to the Government if there is no deadline. A ruling against the Government or any public official cannot be issued immediately.

Exemptions from the operation of the statute –

The law in India states that the statute binds the State or Government unless it is explicitly or necessarily implicitly excluded or exempted from its application. If the statute has been exempted expressly from its application, it is easy to determine whether it is mandatory for the State. However, it can be difficult to determine if the State is exempted by necessary inference from the application. If the legislation calls for imprisonment-related criminal prosecution, it is exempted from the necessary implications.

Privileges Under the Evidence Act

Section 123 stipulates that any evidence obtained from unpublished records related to State matters can only be presented with the approval of the Head officer. Only documents that concern state affairs and whose publication would be detrimental to the general welfare fall under this category. It must relate to state matters and be published in a way that is not detrimental to the public good.

This section is based on the belief that releasing the document in question would harm the public interest. The public interest must always prevail in situations where the public and private interests are at odds.

The Court can decide whether the communication was made to the officer in confidence. For Section 124 to be applicable, the communication must have been made in confidence to a public official. The public officer must also believe that disclosure of the communication would harm the public interest.

Section 162 states that a witness must produce a document if he is asked. The Court will consider these objections.

The Court can inspect any document that it considers appropriate for its admissibility, unless it is related to State matters or requires additional proof. The Court can order translators to translate any document for this purpose if necessary. Otherwise, it will be considered as violating Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 162 applies to private and official documents. The Court was able to discuss the extent of the Government’s privilege of withholding records in the e State of Punjab case v. Sodhi Singh Singh,where the dual claims of individual justice and governmental confidentiality vied for recognition.

Gajendragadkar J. delivered the majority judgment, recognizing the limitations of the privilege for private defense. He cautioned that it was important to protect the interests of others than the public by not dissimulating as the public or unfairly exploiting Section 123’s provisions.

In Amar Chand, v. Union of India, the Court further refined the formulations and denied the privilege because there was evidence that authorities had not considered the potential harm to public interest that could result from the document being revealed. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Court ordered production of the Blue Books and rejected privilege claims.

Promissory Estoppel

It is forbidden for a party to dispute the existence of facts that he has previously stated and that the opposing side has relied on or is allowed to rely upon under estoppel. Courts developed the concept of promissory isoppel in compliance with the equity principle to avoid unfairness.

The foundation of the administrative law’s equitable estoppel, or promissory esteoppel theory is strong. This doctrine is based on the principle that equity was created to prevent injustice. The theory against the Government is a valid tool, particularly when it is necessary to stop any blatant injustice. It is possible to use the concept of promissory estoppel against government officials when it is necessary to stop fraud or blatant injustice while performing public, Government, or executive tasks. Arguments of executive necessity and future executive action freedom can’t be used against the theory within these restrictions.