Senior journalist Ajit Anjum has asked the Supreme Court to let him assist the seven-judge Bench in laying down clear standards on when fair criticism of legislative proceedings can amount to a breach of privilege, ahead of the hearing that begins on October 6.
New Delhi: Senior journalist Ajit Anjum has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the pending seven-judge Bench reference on the scope and limits of legislative privileges, submitting that legislative privileges and fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive [N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai].
The application, filed through Advocate-on-Record Neha Rathi, also seeks standards for clearly determining when fair criticism of legislative proceedings may amount to a breach of privilege. The seven-judge Bench will begin hearing the reference on October 6, and the Court has not yet ruled on the application.
What the intervenor says
Anjum highlights the wider constitutional issues in the reference, including the relationship between legislative privilege, the public’s right to information and the freedom of the press, and the extent to which courts may examine questions of legislative privilege. He submits that privileges are conferred to let the House discharge its constitutional and legislative functions effectively, and so serve a functional purpose instead of being unrestricted powers. They must, he says, be read in the context of the Constitution as a whole, and the guarantee of free speech and the provisions on legislative privilege require a harmonious interpretation, especially given constitutional and legal developments since the Court considered the issue in the Keshav Singh reference. His plea states that the privileges under Articles 105 and 194:
“…must operate within the framework of Constitutional supremacy and enforceable fundamental rights.”
In view of the expanded scope of Article 19(1)(a), he also seeks reconsideration of the judgment in Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha.
Earlier intervention by Kunal Kamra
Before Anjum, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra filed an intervention application in the same reference, submitting that the exercise of legislative privilege cannot be used to stifle the speech of citizens. Kamra said the Court’s consideration of how legislative privilege under Article 194(3) interacts with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) has a direct bearing on breach of privilege proceedings pending against him before the Maharashtra Legislature.
Case Title: N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai
Case Number: Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 206-210 of 2003
Appearance: Advocate-on-Record Neha Rathi for the intervenor, Ajit Anjum