SC Closes TN Assembly Privilege Case as Infructuous, Leaves Legal Questions Open

The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of as infructuous a long-pending case concerning the scope of legislative privileges and their interplay with freedom of speech, while leaving key constitutional questions open for consideration in an appropriate future case.

A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said the proceedings no longer survived after the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly withdrew its earlier resolution against journalists.

“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. The bench also comprised Justices Aravind Kumar, Prashant Kumar Mishra, Joymala Bagchi, Vipul M Pancholi, Shree Chandrashekar and V Mohana.

The matter arose from the Assembly's action in 2003 against journalists, including N Ravi, over articles and editorials published in The Hindu and Murasoli concerning proceedings in the House. The Assembly's Committee of Privileges had examined the publications and concluded that they indicated a breach of parliamentary privilege. The House subsequently passed a resolution on November 7, 2003, against the journalists.

The Supreme Court stayed the arrest of six journalists and later referred the matter to a larger bench after questions arose over the relationship between fundamental rights and legislative privileges.

The bench noted that the Assembly had subsequently passed a unanimous resolution on July 30, 2004, withdrawing its earlier resolution. The court said this crucial development had apparently not been specifically brought to its notice when the matter was referred to the seven-judge bench.

The proceedings had raised substantial questions involving Articles 194(3), 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution, including whether fundamental rights can prevail over legislative privileges. The court said these questions, along with other related constitutional issues, would remain open for adjudication in an appropriate future case.

The reference had also been prompted by differing observations in earlier Supreme Court rulings on the extent of legislative privileges and their relationship with fundamental rights.