Ahead of the seven-judge Constitution Bench hearing that begins on October 6, journalist and The Wire editor Seema Chishti has asked the Supreme Court to let her assist in deciding how far legislative privileges under Article 194(3) can be used against journalists, editors, publishers and citizens.
New Delhi: Journalist Seema Chishti, Editor at The Wire, has moved the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the long-pending reference on the scope of legislative privileges under Article 194(3) of the Constitution and their interplay with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) [N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai].
The intervention application has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Neha Rathi in the matter, which is scheduled to be heard by a seven-judge Constitution Bench from October 6. The Court has not yet ruled on the application.
What the intervenor says
Chishti contends that legislative privileges are not absolute and must be interpreted in harmony with fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. She seeks to assist the Court in laying down constitutional standards for the exercise of legislative privileges against journalists, editors, publishers and citizens engaged in public discourse, and to help reconcile the earlier decisions on the subject, including when criticism of legislative proceedings may or may not amount to a breach of privilege. Her plea states:
“…legislative privileges and fundamental rights do not operate in separate, watertight compartments…”
The application relies on the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in Sita Soren v. Union of India, in which a seven-judge Bench held that legislative privileges are functional in nature and protect the collective functioning of the House, rather than operating as personal immunities for legislators. Chishti also argues that the Indian constitutional framework, founded on constitutional supremacy, differs from the traditional English model of parliamentary sovereignty, so that the powers of State Legislatures under Article 194 must stay within constitutional limits.
The questions before the Bench
The central issue is whether the privileges available to members of State legislatures under Article 194 can override the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Court will also examine whether legislative privileges can be invoked against citizens, including journalists, where their speech or publication is alleged to breach the privileges of the House.
Background of the case
The case arises from a 2003 dispute between the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and The Hindu newspaper over articles criticising the then Chief Minister, J. Jayalalithaa, and her government. The newspaper published a series of articles in April 2003, and on April 25 an editorial titled Rising Intolerance. The then Speaker, K. Kalimuthu, referred the publications to the Assembly’s Privileges Committee, alleging that they lowered the reputation of the House and infringed its sovereignty.
On November 7, 2003, the Assembly passed a resolution holding The Hindu’s editorial staff guilty of breach of privilege and sentencing them to 15 days’ simple imprisonment. The journalists approached the Supreme Court, which stayed the warrants issued against them on November 10, 2003. On December 8, 2003 the Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench of at least five Judges, observing that substantial questions of law arose on the interpretation of Articles 194(3), 19(1)(a) and 21.
Earlier decisions and the seven-judge reference
In December 2004, the Court referred the matter to a seven-Judge Bench after noticing apparent conflicting observations in two earlier Constitution Bench decisions, Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha and In Re: Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures (Special Reference No. 1 of 1964). In M.S.M. Sharma, the Court held that the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) was subject to the special provisions on legislative privileges under Article 194(3). In the 1965 Special Reference, a seven-Judge Bench examined the extent of legislative privileges and the jurisdiction of constitutional courts in matters of alleged breach of privilege, and held that legislative privileges were subject to constitutional limitations.
Case Title: N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai
Case Number: IA in Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 206-210 of 2003
Appearance: Advocate-on-Record Neha Rathi for the intervenor, Seema Chishti