New Delhi: Nishikant Dubey, the BJP MP whose comments deriding the importance of GDP growth were the object of ridicule on social media this week, showed his lack of understanding of the constitution as well when he invoked Article 105 to demand that social media criticism of parliamentary speeches be “banned”.In fact, Article 105 is meant to ensure the freedom of speech for MPs in parliament and protect them from prosecution for what they say on the floor of the house; it is not meant to prevent the public from commenting or even criticising MPs.The issue began when Dubey, who represents Godda in Jharkhand in the Lok Sabha, criticised the recently released GDP figures for India, which show India’s economic slowdown is getting worse. On Monday, he said in parliament: “GDP came in 1934; there was no GDP before that. (Economist Simon) Kuznets said it is not the ultimate truth to believe the GDP as Bible, Ramayana or Mahabharata. In the future, GDP will not be of much use as an economic indicator.”Dubey came under criticism for his dismissal of the GDP figures, especially on social media.Our GDP growth rate may have dropped to 4.5%. But look at the positive side. It’s still higher than Nishikant Dubey’s IQ.— PuNsTeR™ (@Pun_Starr) December 2, 2019Khattar : GDP is down because prices are down.Nishikant Dubey : GDP is not significant. It didn’t exist before 1934.Nirmala Sitharaman : Economy is in crisis but there is no recession.Do you still wonder why GDP is actually down ?— ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴏɴᴋ ᴡʜᴏ sᴏʟᴅ ʜɪs ғAᴋᴇᴇʀɪ (@puntinational) December 2, 2019Very soon BJP will say our Constitution did not exist before 1950 and it won’t be relevant in the future as well.Thanks to the wise BJP MP Nishikant Dubey ?? https://t.co/Buznbxgc8p— ????? ????? (@priyapyadav18) December 2, 2019The MP didn’t take well to the criticism and speaking in parliament, he said: “I seek your protection sir (Lok Sabha Speaker). When the xonstitution was made it was mentioned in Article 105 and 105 (2) that whatever would be discussed in the House, the reporting of the matter would be proper, and any member would be free to put his point without any fear and partiality. Social media and breaking news were not there when Article 105 was made.”He went further and said there should be a law to ban such criticism of MPs for their views: “I personally urge the government through you (Lok Sabha Speaker) that a law should be made to ban social media to stop such activities.”But what does Article 105 say?Article 105 guarantees “freedom of speech in parliament.” It protects MPs from being sued for anything they say or vote they give in parliament. It also protects media houses who publish what MPs say in parliament from being sued.P.D.T. Acharya, former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, says that Article 105 doesn’t protect MPs from being criticised for their comments in the house. “It only ensures that a member cannot be taken to court for what they say in the house. But people have a right to criticise what a member says in the house,” he said.Acharya says that Article 105 is similar to the idea of contempt when it comes to the Supreme Court. “People are allowed to criticise a judgment, even in the harshest terms. But you cannot attribute a motive to the judges who passed the judgment.” The latter would be called ‘contempt of court’ and is not allowed. But criticism of judgements itself is allowed. “Similarly whatever is said by an MP can be criticised, by a fair comment with fair criticism. But you can’t attribute motive to him or her,” says Acharya.Article 105 does have a downside for people outside of parliament. For example, if an MP says something that is false or defamatory against someone else, the MP cannot be sued for defamation or perjury, because Article 105 protects them from a court proceeding. The person who feels defamed can, however, criticise the MP for the comment.Nothing in this section prevents people from criticising parliamentarians for what they say while in the house and it certainly isn’t extendable to having a ban on social media discussions about MPs statements.Offering an explanation of his comments, Dubey said in parliament that he spoke with logic and evidence. He said that Simon Kuznets had said in 1934 that he himself was not happy with the concept of GDP. And that in 2008, economist Amartya Sen and others had been part of a committee in France that had made similar observations. “A discussion is going on over the issue in the whole world,” said Dubey.