That the issue of parliamentary privilege so completely overwhelmed the content of the Pathak report wasn’t incidental, perhaps. It has to do with an unmistakable zealousness our parliamentarians have been known to display on such matters. The powers, privileges and immunities of the Indian Parliament are not properly codified and MPs have often manipulated this fuzziness to their advantage. While the people’s representatives need to be assured of the freedom to fearlessly perform their job in the highest forum of debate in the country, and they ought to be vigilant against any encroachments, this immunity must not be used to insulate themselves from public scrutiny or criticism. The several face-offs between the legislature and judiciary on this account have only underlined the worry: a kind of institutional petulance, an unflattering touchiness, may be settling over the House, undermining its dignity and sobriety.

In the pause that Shekhawat’s decision brings, some serious thought must be given to the matter of codifying parliamentary privilege. Its vagueness must go. But, more importantly, MPs across the political divide, and especially those who occupy the Opposition benches, must rethink their priorities. Which is more important — the suspected slight to them or the repeated failure of their institution to frame and to debate political issues of national concern?