Highlight the key differences in the scope of Freedom of speech and expression, Parliamentary Privileges vis-à-vis Fundamental rights. Why is it necessary to maintain a balance between parliamentary privilege and fundamental rights?

Recent incident of expulsion of remarks and inclusion of words as unparliamentary has led to debate between Article 19(1)a and Article 105. Key Differences Freedom of Speech and Expression | Parliamentary Privilege - 19(1)a and restrictions under 19(3) | - Article 105 (and subject to conventions) - Available to all citizens | - Available only to MPs (and Attorney General inside floor of house) - Restricted by Article 19(2) | - Restricted by Rules & Conduct of house & conventions - May approach Supreme Court (Article 32) | - No remedy available

Multiple and varied interpretation of "reasonable" restrictions and vastness due to defamation, sexually, friendly salons clause Clear guidelines of unparliamentary words Privileges committee can enquise into breach Balance MPs are representative of people, they should both raise issues of common people but also maintain decorum MPs act as sole model for people, breach of privileges and unparliamentary language create wrong message Overall constitutional morality be upheld This will help in smooth functioning of parliament which sees less than 40% productivity in Monsoon session