Legislative Privilege vs Free Speech: Supreme Court Drops a 20-Year-Old Reference After the 2003 Tamil Nadu Assembly Resolution Is Found Withdrawn
A seven-judge reference on the clash between legislative privilege and freedom of speech had been pending in the Supreme Court for about 20 years. It was listed before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
The case began in 2003. On 7 November 2003, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a resolution sentencing five senior journalists of an English daily and the editor of the Tamil daily Murasoli to 15 days' simple imprisonment for breach of privilege and contempt of the House. The action followed an editorial titled "Rising Intolerance" that criticised the state government.
The Supreme Court stayed the arrests on 10 November 2003. The matter, known as N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai, was later sent to a larger bench to examine how Articles 194(3), 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution fit together.
Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly told the Court that the 2003 resolution had been withdrawn in 2004. An affidavit recording this was already on file.
The Court said it would not take up a "mere academic exercise" when the action that started the case no longer exists. Soon after, the Court closed the reference as infructuous (no longer having any practical purpose), without deciding the constitutional questions.
Parliamentary Privileges (Articles 105 and 194)
Parliamentary privileges are special rights and protections given to Parliament, the state legislatures, their members and their committees. They exist so that lawmakers can speak and work freely, without fear of being sued or punished for what they say in the House. Article 105 covers Parliament and Article 194 covers state legislatures. The two articles are almost word for word the same.
The N. Ravi case was the chance for a seven-judge bench to settle how far a legislature's power to punish can reach against the press. Because the Assembly withdrew its 2003 resolution in 2004, the Court found there was nothing left to decide, and the larger question of privileges versus free speech remains open.
Freedom of Speech and Expression: Article 19(1)(a)
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution gives every citizen of India the right to freedom of speech and expression. This means you can share your views and ideas by speaking, writing, printing, pictures, films, the internet or any other medium. It is one of the most important fundamental rights in a democracy, because people can only choose and question their government if they can speak freely. But the right is not absolute: Article 19(2) lets the State place "reasonable restrictions" on it for certain fixed reasons.
The journalists in the 2003 Tamil Nadu case had argued that jailing them for an editorial violated their freedom of speech and press under Article 19(1)(a). The closure of the reference means the 1958 Sharma rule, that privilege can prevail over this freedom, has not been revisited by a larger bench.
- Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution: 7 November 2003; five journalists and the Murasoli editor sentenced to 15 days' simple imprisonment
- Supreme Court stay: 10 November 2003
- Resolution withdrawn: 2004
- Case: N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai; pending about 20 years before a seven-judge bench
- Articles involved: 194(3), 19(1)(a) and 21
- Outcome: reference closed as infructuous; constitutional questions left undecided