A seven-judge Constitution Bench may not commence hearing on October 6 questions touching upon whether legislative privilege can stifle free speec h, arising out of a 2003 Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution to arrest editors of The Hindu for an editorial criticising then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.
Ramachandran submitted. He urged the Chief Justice to consider his preliminary objections against hearing the referral on the merits, saying it would only be an academic exercise.
“It is not noticed [in the court’s order of reference in August],” Mr. Chief Justice Kant said the court did not want to get into a prolonged academic exercise, particularly when several other part-heard matters were pending.
The case
In November 2003, N. When the case came up for hearing, senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the newspaper, had argued against the invocation of Article 194(3) to choke Press freedom enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Krishna had, on December 8, 2003, referred the tussle between legislative privilege and free speech to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
Chief Justice Kant suggested the case could be kept formally open in the court, to be taken up when an occasion arises in future. Shortly after the resolution, the police raided The Hindu ’s Chennai office, attempting to arrest its senior editors. Ravi, the then Editor of The Hind u, approached the Supreme Court. The apex court had also examined the larger legal issue whether a critical speech or publication would constitute a breach of legislative privilege. However, a Division Bench of Justices Y.K. Sabharwal and B.N.
The Bench had noted that the petitions and intervening applications, by journalists and the Press Council of India, raised “substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Articles 194(3), 19 and the interplay between these two Articles and Article 21 of the Constitution”.
