Not-so-far-codified parliamentary privileges of our elected representatives have always been in the news and a matter of controversy. Like the mother who every other moment hurls the "I'll slap you" threat to his errant child, we also hear our parliamentarians threaten a privilege motion against every Tom, Dick and Harry. The latest has been the case of Indian Muslim League Member of Rajya Sabha, Abdul Wahab from Kerala who was made to leave the Air India aircraft before takeoff from Kozhikode on April 7 after a tiff with the pilot. The MP is reported to have threatened to move a privilege motion against the erring airline staff.

Without going into the merits of the incident and taking sides, it is useful to understand what, in effect, can amount to a breach of parliamentary/ legislative privilege although during the last sixty years no effort - and perhaps deliberately! - has been made to define these.

Our public representatives, honourable as they are, are yet human beings. And to err is human. An error whether of words or actions, can invite criticism and reproach from the people who bestow the aura of 'honour' on our public representatives on the strength of their vote. It is the people who make and unmake our elected representatives; the latter derive all their power and privileges from the people.

Yet, our public representatives seem to be growing more and more zealous and protective of their rights and privileges. They overlook their duties. The thin attendance at the time of important debates in our legislatures, at times having to be adjourned a number of times for want of quorum because the members had more important business other than legislative to take care of - the legislative business for which they are paid hefty pay, perks, allowances and, above all, the privileges. Any criticism of theirs, exposure of their activities these days invariably inviting motions of breach of privilege guaranteed.

The privileges are, no doubt, necessary for the proper exercise of the functions entrusted to Parliament by the Constitution "to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament", according to famous authority on parliamentary business Mr. MN Kaul. These are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and the vindication of its authority and dignity. The privileges have been granted to members so that "they may be able to perform their duties in Parliament without let or hindrance". (Report of Committee of Privileges in Captain Ramsay case House of Commons (H.C. 164(1939-40) p vi, para 19)

Yet, privileges "do not discharge the member from the obligations to society which apply to him as much and perhaps more closely in that capacity, as they apply to other subjects" (H. C. 1951 Lewis case). These "do not place a member of Parliament on a footing different from that of an ordinary citizen in the matter of laws." (Committee of Speakers 1956).

Even after winning an election, a public representative does not lose his individual identity and personal existence - a person with his own profession, vocation and a circle of his own relations, friends and acquaintances. The one facet of his personality as a private individual engrossed in his personal affairs and business promotion cannot be made a part and parcel of his other facet of a public representative. Nor can - and should - both these aspects come into clash with each other. A respectable distance and dichotomy between the two has to be maintained for a harmonious functioning. The powers, functions and duties of the one should not transgress into the field of the other.

A public representative may come to have a clash of interests and, in the process, there could be some infringement of civil or criminal law even. But that does not provide a privilege to him against his spouse, brothers, parents and other relatives because these have nothing to do with his duties, functions and powers as a public representative.