The story so far: The Supreme Court has disposed of a long-pending reference concerning the scope of legislative privileges and their interplay with free speech arising out of a 2003 Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution to arrest editors of The Hindu for an editorial criticising then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.
However, the Court clarified that all substantial questions of law regarding the precedence between parliamentary privileges and free speech are kept open for determination in appropriate future proceedings.
What was the case about?
In November 2003, N. Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the newspaper, argued that Article 194(3) could not be used to restrict the freedom of the press protected under Article 19(1)(a). On December 8, 2003, a Bench of Justices Y.K. On December 8, 2004, the five-judge Bench heard Mr. Salve’s submission that two earlier decisions, the 1959 Pandit M.S.M. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha case and the 1964 Presidential Reference, had taken different views on the relationship between free speech and legislative privilege. On October 12, 2023, a seven-judge Bench headed by then Chief Justice D.Y. The case was next listed on February 2, 2024, for a procedural matter.
The Assembly passed a resolution seeking the arrest of senior editorial staff of The Hindu . Soon after, police raided the newspaper’s Chennai office while attempting to arrest its senior editors. Ravi, then Editor of The Hindu, approached the Supreme Court. Sabharwal and B.N. Krishna referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench. Sharma v. The matter was then referred to a seven-judge Bench for an authoritative decision. The case then remained pending for several years. Chandrachud impleaded the Union government and asked the Attorney General to assist the court.
The Bench said the case 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”.
The larger question before the court was whether critical reporting or publication about legislative proceedings could amount to a breach of legislative privilege.
