SC Closes 22-Year-Old TN Privilege Case, Leaves Free Speech Questions Open

New Delhi: A seven-judge Supreme Court bench on Tuesday disposed of as infructuous a long-pending matter related to the interpretation of provisions on the scope of legislative privileges of lawmakers and its effect on the freedom of speech and expression. The Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant kept the substantial questions of law open for adjudication in an appropriate future case.

Besides the CJI, the bench comprised Justices Aravind Kumar, Prashant Kumar Mishra, Joymala Bagchi, Vipul M Pancholi, Shree Chandrashekar and V Mohana.

"The writ petitions are disposed of as having become infructuous. However, the questions of law are kept open to be pursued in future in appropriate proceedings," the bench said in its order.

The proceedings concerned a reference arising out of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly's action against journalists, including N Ravi, in 2003 over articles and editorials published in The Hindu and Murasoli relating to proceedings in the assembly.

At the outset, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, brought to the bench's attention an affidavit dated August 24, 2004, recording a subsequent unanimous resolution of the assembly of July 30, 2004.

The July 30, 2004 resolution had withdrawn the earlier resolution of November 7, 2003, passed against the petitioners.

The CJI said that this subsequent development had apparently not been specifically brought to the notice of the bench when the matter was referred to a seven-judge bench.

"Even before the discussions could appear before the House, the legislative assembly passed a resolution on November 7, 2003," the bench noted while recording the details of the case.

The bench referred to news articles published in The Hindu newspaper on April 12, 13, 24 and 26, 2003, describing the events that took place in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.

"Similarly, on April 26, 2003, Murasoli carried a literal Tamil translation of the editorial published in The Hindu on April 25, 2003," the bench noted.

The publication of these articles led to a reference to the Committee of Privileges by the speaker under the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules for examination and report, it said.

"The Committee of Privileges convened on May 5, 2003 and examined the subject news items, articles and editorials in question. The committee opined that the statements contained therein indicated a breach of parliamentary privilege and called for an explanation," it said, adding that even before the discussions could appear before the House, the legislative assembly passed a resolution on November 7, 2003.

The bench said on December 8, 2003, an order was passed by the apex court noting the substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Article 194(3), Article 19(1)(a), the interplay between these two Articles, Article 21, and also as to the interpretation of other provisions of the Constitution.

The matter was referred to a five-judge bench, the order said, adding that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a resolution on July 30, 2004.

"It seems that the most relevant subsequent event, namely the resolution dated July 30, 2004, whereby the legislative assembly unanimously resolved to withdraw its previous resolution dated November 7, 2003 passed against the petitioners, was not specifically brought to the notice of this court. It also escaped notice," the CJI said.

The order then said that on December 8, 2004, this court noted certain observations made in the case of 'Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others', reported in 1959, a five-judge Bench decision of this court, were in conflict with the powers, privileges and immunities of legislators as explained in another case of 1964.

"This prompted the bench to make a reference to a seven-judge bench. This is how…," the order said.

"In light of the above subsequent resolution, the previous resolution dated November 7, 2003, stands recalled," the bench noted, adding that the subject matter has been rendered infructuous and there is no cause of action which survives for adjudication.

"They have, however, pointed out, and rightly so, that there are certain questions of law briefly touched upon by this court in the order dated 8th December 2004, and otherwise also, which arise for consideration and which need to be left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings," it said. One of the pleas -- N Ravi and others versus Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Tamil Nadu -- raises the question whether fundamental rights override legislative privileges.

The case pertains to 2003, when journalist N Ravi and others approached the top court after the Tamil Nadu Assembly's then speaker K Kalimuthu ordered their arrest for alleged breach of privilege and contempt.

The top court had 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.