The Supreme Court has disposed of a long-pending reference concerning the scope of legislative privileges and their interplay with fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.

It was observed that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had unanimously resolved on July 30, 2004, to withdraw its earlier resolution dated November 7, 2003 and held that the writ petitions have been rendered infructuous as no cause of action survives.

However, acknowledging the submissions of the petitioners, the Court clarified that all substantial questions of law regarding the precedence between parliamentary privileges and free speech are kept open for determination in appropriate future proceedings.

The Court was hearing the reference on the interpretation of provisions related to the scope of legislative privileges of MLAs and their effect on the freedom of speech and expression.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Vipul Pancholi, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice V Mohana ordered, "In light of the above-stated subsequent resolution, contextually, the previous resolution dated 7th November 2003 stands withdrawn. The subject matter has been rendered infructuous, and there is no cause of action which survives for adjudication...They, however, have pointed out, and rightly so, that there are non-contentious questions of law briefly touched by this Court in the order dated 8th December 2004 and otherwise also that arise for consideration, and which need to be left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings."

"However, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners referred to the contents of the order dated 8th December 2004 to, inter alia, point out that there are various substantial questions of law that otherwise arise for consideration. They, however, submitted, and rightly so, that such questions can be answered by this Court in future in appropriate proceedings. We are in full agreement with the suggestion given on behalf of the petitioners. Consequently, these instant writ petitions are disposed of as having become infructuous. However, the questions of law are kept open to be responded by this Court in future in appropriate proceedings", the Court added.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Menaka Guruswamy, and Arundhati Katju appeared for the Petitioners, while Attorney General N. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran appeared for the Respondents.

The issue concerning the interpretation of provisions related to the scope of legislative privileges of MLAs and its interplay with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression was referred to a five-judge bench in December 2003.

Articles were published in the daily newspaper The Hindu on 12th April 2003, 13th April 2003, 23rd April 2003, and 25th April 2003, describing the events that took place in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in the newspaper The Hindu describing the events that took place in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. Similarly, on 26th April 2003, the issue of Murasoli carried a literal Tamil translation of the editorial published in The Hindu on 25th April 2003.

The publication of these articles led to a reference to the Committee of Privileges by the Speaker under Rule 226 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules for examination and report. The Committee of Privileges convened on 5th May 2003 and examined the subject news items, articles, and editorials in question. The Committee opined that certain statements contained therein indicated a breach of parliamentary privilege, so far as to lead to issuance of a notice to the petitioners requesting them to appear before the Committee to offer their explanation on 12th May 2003. The petitioners appeared before the Committee and sought time to submit a written explanation.

"It seems that even before the petitioners could appear before the House, the Legislative Assembly passed a resolution on 7th November 2003 finding the subject of the petitioners to be a gross, contemptuous conduct of the House and a breach of privilege of the House, and sentenced 15 days simple imprisonment...That action of the State Legislative Assembly is subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition...This Court by its order dated 8th December 2003 has noted that substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Article 194(3), 19(1)(a); interplay between these two articles, Article 21; and also as to the interpretation of other provisions of the Constitution arise for consideration", the Court added in its order.

It was added that meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed another resolution on 30th July 2004. 

It was noted by the Bench that the most pertinent subsequent event, namely the resolution dated 30th July 2004 whereby the Legislative Assembly unanimously resolved to withdraw its previous resolution passed against the petitioners was not specifically brought to the notice of this Court on 8th December 2004, and the Court noted that certain observations made in Pandit M. S. M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha and Others [1959], by a five-Judge Bench decision, were in conflict with powers, privileges, and immunities of State Legislatures as explained in In re: Special Reference No. 1/1964, namely a seven-Judge Bench decision, even though the latter had expressed that it was in agreement with M. S. M. Sharma supra.

Consequently, this prompted the Bench to make a reference to a seven-Judge Bench, hence, the present matter.

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly, pointed out the contents of affidavit dated 24th August 2004 of the then Secretary of the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly, placing on record the subsequent unanimous resolution of the State Assembly dated 30th July 2004.

"It is evident that substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Articles 194(3), 19(1)(a), interplay between these two articles, Article 21 and also as to the interpretation of other provisions of the Constitution of India are involved," the Apex Court had said in its December 8, 2003 order.

In December 2004, when the matter came up before the five-judge bench, it was informed about the conflicting views on the issue by two separate benches.

The five-judge bench then recommended that the issue be placed before a seven-judge bench for authoritative determination.

One of the pleas -- titled N Ravi and others versus Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Tamil Nadu -- raises the question of whether fundamental rights override legislative privileges.

The case pertains to 2003, when journalist N Ravi and others approached the Apex Court after the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker K Kalimuthu ordered their arrest for alleged breach of privilege and contempt.

The Apex Court had then stayed the arrest of six journalists and later referred the matter to a seven-judge bench in view of conflicting verdicts.

One of the judgments had held that fundamental rights should prevail, while the 1965 verdict said fundamental rights were subservient to parliamentary privileges.

Cause Title: N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai & Ors.

Tags: