The correspondent filing this dispatch is a law student in Mumbai who must remain anonymous.
On Monday, the Indian Parliament’s monsoon session was disrupted once again as opposition parties took to the streets of New Delhi in protest. The session had so far been marred by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar’s resignation, multiple adjournments, and a lack of productive deliberation.
The protests follow Lok Sabha opposition leader Rahul Gandhi’s August 7 accusation that the Election Commission of India (ECI) engaged in voter list and election fraud to aid the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He alleged that 1,00,250 fake votes were created in the Mahadevapura Assembly seat, part of Bangalore Central, to secure a BJP win. The claims come amid a heated political showdown and growing controversy over recent electoral roll revisions in the State of Bihar.
In response, Members of Parliament from the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) marched from Parliament House to the Election Commission office, alleging that results in about 48 constituencies were manipulated through fabricated electoral rolls to favour the BJP. Delhi police detained the protesting MPs during the march.
Article 19(1)(b) of India’s Constitution vests in citizens the right to peaceful assembly without arms. While the Supreme Court of India (SCI) has affirmed the right to organised and non-violent marches, it restricted this right in 2020, ruling that protests could only occur at “designated sites.” The SCI also rejected a review petition challenging this ruling. Granting administrative authorities discretion has curtailed the right to protest by confining demonstrators to a limited number of designated locations.
The responsibility of citizens’ representatives to push back becomes even more important as the government—and other threats to free speech—rapidly close off alternative channels for civic and political dissent, making the MPs’ protests critical as expressive forums continue to shrink.
MPs enjoy Parliamentary privileges—rights, immunities, and exemptions granted to the two Houses of Parliament, their committees, members, and others involved in parliamentary proceedings. These privileges exist across jurisdictions and allow legislators to perform their duties with minimal external interference. MP privileges have been codified under Article 105 of the Constitution and adapted by several judicial decisions. Most notably, a seven-judge bench at the SCI held that parliamentary privileges extended beyond law-making functions to other legislator powers and responsibilities as well. However, they are limited to the duration of a Parliamentary session and in the course of the business of Parliament. Alongside these privileges stands an enduring prohibition on any demonstrations, strikes, fasts, and protests within the Parliament premises, meaning that Parliament privileges do not protect these acts.
In the present case, the protest had physically moved from the Parliament floor to the public square. There is a compelling argument to be made that an MP’s mandate to voice the public’s grievances should not end at Parliament’s doors—especially when electoral integrity raises representative legitimacy issues. MPs are left with few avenues to fulfill their representative duties when legislative debates break down. While this may challenge notions of institutional order and decorum, the government must safeguard peaceful protest and assembly rights in order to foster a democratic society.
In a wider context, it is evident that the “vote theft” controversy is unlikely to die down any time soon. India’s electoral cycle is designed so that state assembly elections are staggered, while general elections at the centre are held separately. This sequencing functions like a rolling referendum on the performance of governments at both the state and central levels, with voting serving as an expression of the people’s will. If the alleged inconsistencies in the electoral rolls are proven, the credibility of this quasi-referendum—and the democratic mandate it produces—would be fundamentally undermined. Silencing MPs would push the nation further into a vortex eroding both freedom of speech and the legitimacy of the electoral process. The current agitation marks a pivotal moment that could reshape the rhetoric and rivalries of India’s electoral politics for years to come.
