Former Lok Sabha Member and former CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Subhashini Ali has approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the Constitution Bench proceedings concerning the scope and constitutional limits of legislative privileges under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.
Ali has urged the Court to clarify that legislative privilege cannot be employed against citizens, journalists or other non-members merely because they have criticised a legislature or its functioning outside the House.
Her intervention assumes significance as the Supreme Court prepares to consider the larger constitutional questions surrounding the relationship between legislative privilege and fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
Ali has submitted that legislative privileges serve a specific constitutional purpose — protecting the autonomy and effective functioning of legislative institutions and enabling members to discharge their functions without undue interference. According to her plea, such privileges cannot be transformed into a generalised power to shield a legislature or its members from public scrutiny or criticism.
The former parliamentarian has argued that criticism of legislative functioning, even when it is stringent, severe, disputed or inconvenient, cannot by itself constitute an obstruction of legislative business. For privilege to be invoked against a non-member for speech or reportage outside the House, she contends, there must be a direct and proximate connection between the impugned conduct and an actual obstruction of the functioning of the legislature.
Ali has also relied upon earlier Supreme Court decisions, including Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha and Amarinder Singh v. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha, to contend that the exercise of legislative privilege remains subject to constitutional scrutiny and cannot be treated as immune from judicial review.
The intervention comes against the backdrop of a wider constitutional reference concerning the extent of privileges enjoyed by State Legislatures under Article 194(3), and their interplay with fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.
Seema Chishti Seeks Safeguards For Press Freedom
Separately, journalist and The Wire Editor Seema Chishti has also moved the Supreme Court seeking permission to intervene in the same proceedings. She has urged the seven-judge Constitution Bench to lay down clear constitutional standards governing the exercise of legislative privilege against journalists, editors, publishers and citizens engaged in public discourse.
Chishti’s application contends that legislative privileges are not absolute and must be interpreted consistently with fundamental rights. She has urged the Court to examine when criticism or reportage concerning legislative proceedings can legitimately constitute a breach of privilege and when such proceedings would impermissibly encroach upon freedom of speech and expression.
Her plea emphasises that legislative privileges and fundamental rights cannot be viewed as operating in separate constitutional compartments. Rather, according to her submission, they must be harmonised within the broader framework of constitutional supremacy and democratic governance.
Chishti has placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s 2024 Constitution Bench judgment in Sita Soren v. Union of India, which held that legislative privileges are functional in character and are intended to protect the collective functioning of the House rather than confer personal immunity upon legislators.
She has further submitted that the constitutional position in India must be assessed against the country’s own framework of constitutional supremacy, rather than by mechanically importing principles associated with the traditional English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
Seven-Judge Bench To Examine Legislative Privilege-Fundamental Rights Conflict
The proceedings arise from the long-running litigation involving N. Ravi and Others v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai and Others, originating in the action taken by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly against journalists of The Hindu in 2003.
The journalists had published articles and an editorial critical of the then Tamil Nadu Government and Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa. The Assembly subsequently found members of the newspaper’s editorial staff guilty of breach of privilege and sentenced them to 15 days’ simple imprisonment. The journalists approached the Supreme Court, which stayed the warrants issued against them.
The constitutional questions arising from the dispute concern, among other things, the extent of the privileges available to State Legislatures under Article 194(3), the circumstances in which such privileges can be exercised against persons outside the House, and their relationship with Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.
The matter was initially referred to a Constitution Bench in December 2003. In 2004, the five-judge Bench recommended that the questions be placed before a larger seven-judge Bench after conflicting positions in earlier Constitution Bench decisions came to light.
The seven-judge Constitution Bench is scheduled to commence hearing the reference on October 6.
The reference therefore places before the Supreme Court a significant constitutional question: how far can the special privileges of a legislative body extend when their exercise is alleged to affect the fundamental rights of persons who are not members of the House?
The intervention applications filed by Ali and Chishti seek to place before the Court the perspective of legislators and members of the press, respectively, while urging a constitutionally defined boundary between the legitimate protection of legislative functioning and the rights of citizens to criticise, report upon and scrutinise elected institutions.
The post Supreme Court to examine limits of legislative privilege as Subhashini Ali, Seema Chishti seek protection for Public criticism and press freedom appeared first on India Legal.