Ajit Anjum Approaches Supreme Court To Intervene In Legislative Privileges Case

Journalist Ajit Anjum has approached the Supreme Court by way of an intervention application in the matter relating to legislative privileges, which is presently being considered by a seven-Judge Bench.

Anjum's application highlights the wider constitutional issues involved in the case, including the relationship between legislative privilege, the public’s right to information, freedom of the press and the extent to which courts may examine questions concerning legislative privilege.

".. the constitutional development in India has consistently recognized and given a broad and liberal interpretation to the fundamental rights of citizens. In the context of media restrictions on accurate reportage, particularly at the time of instant publication, live broadcasts and social media, such restrictions may have a chilling effect on the freedom of the press, which plays a vital role in the functioning of a democracy," the court has been told.

The application filed through AOR Neha Rathi emphasises that legislative privileges are conferred to enable the House to discharge its constitutional and legislative functions effectively and are, therefore, intended to serve a functional purpose rather than operate as unrestricted powers. It accordingly submits that such privileges must be interpreted in the context of the Constitution as a whole. It further argues that the guarantees of freedom of speech and the provisions concerning legislative privilege require a harmonious interpretation, particularly in view of the constitutional and legal developments that have taken place since the Supreme Court considered the issue in the Keshav Singh Reference.

In related news, Kunal Kamra has also approached the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in a seven-judge Constitution Bench case that will examine the limits of legislative privileges and their interplay with citizens' fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Kamra has sought to be impleaded in N Ravi & Ors. v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai, a long-pending matter concerning the scope of privileges available to State Legislatures under Article 194 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is scheduled to commence hearing the reference on October 6, 2026.

Kamra's plea assumes significance against the backdrop of breach of privilege proceedings initiated against him by the Maharashtra Legislature over a satirical performance in his comedy show Naya Bharat. He has argued that the constitutional questions before the seven-judge Bench have a direct bearing on the proceedings he faces. Kamra’s satirical performance dwelt on the split of the Shiv Sena party in 2022, which led to the resignation of then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, and the eventual formation of a new State regime led by Eknath Shinde. In his song, Kamra also reportedly called Shinde ‘Gaddar’ (traitor).

According to the plea, the invocation of legislative privilege against citizens for speech concerning elected representatives raises important questions concerning the protection afforded to free speech. Kamra has contended that proceedings of this nature could have a chilling effect on public commentary concerning the functioning and conduct of elected representatives.

The reference in N Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai arises from a 2003 controversy involving journalists associated with The Hindu. The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had initiated privilege proceedings after publication of an editorial critical of the then State government. The Assembly subsequently passed a resolution imposing imprisonment on journalists associated with the newspaper. The journalists approached the Supreme Court, challenging the action and arguing that legislative privilege could not be used to override freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Supreme Court had stayed the proposed arrests in November 2003. The Court subsequently noted questions concerning the relationship between earlier decisions dealing with legislative privileges and fundamental rights.

In December 2003, a five-judge Bench referred the matter to a seven-judge Bench, observing that substantial constitutional questions were involved. The reference concerns, among other issues, the interplay between Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 194 of the Constitution.

The present seven-judge reference will therefore consider the constitutional boundaries of legislative privilege and its relationship with fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and expression. The case has remained pending for more than two decades and is now listed for substantive hearing from October 6.