Arguing that parliamentary privilege is a constitutional power that must operate within constitutional limits, former Lok Sabha member Subhashini Ali has moved the Supreme Court for permission to intervene in the seven-judge reference on the scope ofs legislative privileges, submitting that criticism of a legislature by a non-member, even if severe or inconvenient, does not by itself obstruct the functioning of the House.
New Delhi: Former Lok Sabha member and former CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Subhashini Ali has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking leave to intervene in the constitutional reference on the scope and limits of parliamentary privileges under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution [N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai].
The reference, arising from a 2003 case concerning the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker, is before a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, which will begin hearing it on October 6, 2026. The application has been filed through Advocate Aarthi Rajan.
Basis of the intervention
Ali, who was a Lok Sabha member from Kanpur in 1989 and a member of the CPI(M) Polit Bureau from 2014 to 2024, has said that her intervention rests on her experience as a legislator who exercised the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 105(1) and 194(1). The application raises the question of the constitutional limits of parliamentary privilege when it is used against citizens or members of the press for speech, reportage or criticism outside the House.
She contends that privilege exists to secure the independent and effective functioning of legislatures and to let legislators deliberate freely, and cannot be treated as a general power to shield Parliament or its members from public scrutiny.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Supreme Court Rules Against Immunity of MPs and MLAs in Bribery Cases
‘Direct and proximate’ connection with obstruction
The application submits that criticism of a legislature, even if “stringent, severe, disputed or inconvenient”, does not on its own amount to obstruction of the House. Where privilege is invoked against a non-member for speech or reportage outside the House, it argues, there should be a direct and proximate connection with obstruction of legislative business or the essential functioning of the House.
Ali further argues that powers exercised under privilege, such as summoning, arresting, detaining or punishing a non-member for speech made outside the House, directly engage the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), including the press’s freedom to report and comment on legislative affairs. According to the application, Articles 105 and 194 cannot create areas of public power that are immune from fundamental rights or judicial review where the exercise of privilege affects the speech or liberty of citizens.
Reconsideration of earlier privilege rulings
Ali has asked the Court to consider whether the principles in M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha (the Searchlight case) and Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (the Keshav Singh case) continue to be relevant, in light of the 44th Constitutional Amendment and later Supreme Court decisions on parliamentary privilege, fundamental rights and judicial review.
She relies on Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha, in which the Court held that the exercise of parliamentary privilege is open to judicial review on grounds such as illegality and unconstitutionality, and on Amarinder Singh v. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha, which considered the constitutional limits on exercising privilege. She also refers to the seven-judge Bench judgment in Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024), which, according to the application, confined parliamentary privilege to conduct bearing the requisite relationship with the collective functioning of the House.
ALSO READ: “Bribery is complete when bribery is accepted”: CJI
Other intervention applications
The application notes that the question of the Speaker’s power to direct the arrest of journalists for alleged breach of privilege is already part of the reference. Her limited submission is that, privilege being a constitutional power, it must operate within the structure and limits of the Constitution, and that the principles evolved by the Court apply with greater force when privilege is asserted against citizens for acts outside the House.
Before Ali, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and journalists Ajit Anjum and Seema Chishti, among others, have also sought to intervene in the reference. The Court has not yet ruled on any of the applications.
Why the application matters
The reference gives the Court an opportunity to define when a legislature may use its privilege powers against people who are not its members, including the press. The positions summarised here are those of the applicant, and the Court will decide whether to permit the intervention and how far to adopt any of the submissions when the Bench takes up the reference.
Case Title: N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai [W.P. (Cri.) Nos. 206 to 210 of 2003]
Bench: Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India (hearing from October 6, 2026)
Appearances: Advocate Aarthi Rajan for the intervenor, Subhashini Ali