SC disposed of the matter concerning legislative privileges as infructuous.

The Supreme Court today closed the seven-judge Constitution Bench case pending since 2004 concerning the limits of legislative privileges and their interplay with citizens' fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice PK Mishra, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Vipul Pancholi, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice V Mohana was constituted to hear the matter after nearly 2 decades.

The reference before Supreme Court in N Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai arose 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.

Today, the CJI Surya Kant led bench noted that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had passed a resolution on 30th July 2004 whereby the Legislative Assembly unanimously resolved to withdraw its previous resolution dated 7th November 2003 passed against the petitioners, which was not specifically brought to the notice of the Supreme Court. 

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly, told the bench that the subject matter had been rendered infructuous and there was no cause of action which survived for adjudication.

Court was further told that there were certain questions of law briefly touched upon 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. Agreeing with the submission, the bench ordered, "We are in full agreement with the suggestion given on behalf of the petitioners. Consequently, 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."

Recently, intervention applications had been filed in the instant case. Comedian Kunal Kamra approached the Supreme Court 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).

Former Member of Parliament Subhashini Ali also moved Supreme Court of India seeking to intervene in her personal capacity and place before Court the perspective of a former legislator with direct experience of the purpose and operation of parliamentary privilege, the functioning of Parliament, and the constitutional object of privilege, namely to secure free and fearless deliberation within the House and protect legislators from obstruction, intimidation, and external interference.

Journalist Ajit Anjum had also approached the Supreme Court by way of an intervention application in the matter. Anjum's application highlighted 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.

Background

The case orginated from an incident involving The Hindu newspaper in April 2003 when the newspaper published an editorial titled “Rising Intolerance”, which criticised then Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa and her government. The Tamil Nadu Assembly alleged that the newspaper had distorted proceedings of the House and had made remarks amounting to a breach of privilege.

On November 7, 2003, then Speaker K. Kalimuthu passed a resolution holding that the publication amounted to a breach of the privileges of the House. The Assembly resolved to arrest members of the newspaper's editorial staff. Within hours of the resolution, police arrested The Hindu Editor N. Ravi, Executive Editor Malini Parthasarathy, Bureau Chief V. Jayant, Special Correspondent Radha Venkatesan and Publisher S. Rangarajan.

The journalists approached the Supreme Court challenging the Assembly's action. On November 10, 2003, a division bench comprising Justices Y.K. Sabharwal and S.B. Sinha stayed the arrests, observing that the House misread the law while initiating proceedings against the journalists.

Case Title: N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice PK Mishra, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Vipul Pancholi, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice V Mohana

Hearing Date: October 6, 2026

Tags: