The author reviews the main approaches in the Turkish constitutional law literature on legislative non-liability in the light of current case law and tries to present his unique analysis. The main finding in the article is that the so-called “absolute legislative immunity” is not absolute at all. Legislative non-liability has been eroded in four ways in Turkey: (1) Legislative non-liability is not effective against civil lawsuits under the Turkish Constitutional Court’s case law that causes opposition members to face high compensations. (2) Legislative non-liability does not provide adequate protection against the vague provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and the arbitrary application of these provisions against administrative sanctions. (3) In criminal cases, legislative non-liability is weakened, on the one hand, by not being sufficiently taken into account, especially in terms security measures; on the other hand, subject to exceptions to immunity in purely verbal crimes. (4) Provisional article 20 of the Constitution has hollowed out the legislative non-liability. The author also presented a new list to the exceptions of legislative non-liability beyond the ongoing assumptions in the Turkish legal literature and opened it to the discussion of the Turkish constitutional doctrine. Accordingly, the exceptions are as follows: (i) The words of the deputies may be subject to sanctions in cases of dissolution of political parties before the Turkish Constitutional Court. (ii) Prohibition of propaganda of forest destruction. (iii) Disciplinary sanctions stipulated in the Rules of Procedure of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. (iv) Prohibition of repetition outside, which can be manifested in two ways: the parliament’s decision of secrecy in general or the parliament’s decision on the deputies in particular.