Free Speech versus Legislative Privilege: Supreme Court to Revisit the Limits

Why in news?

Journalists Seema Chishti, Ajit Anjum and comedian Kunal Kamra seek to intervene before a seven-judge Bench on legislative privilege.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims: Indian Polity – Articles 105, 194, 122, 212, 361A and 19(1)(a); Committees of Privileges; freedom of the press.

Mains GS-II: Parliament and State Legislatures – structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers and privileges and issues arising out of these; separation of powers; fundamental rights; role of the judiciary.

GS-IV / Essay: Tolerance of dissent and criticism in a democracy; accountability of those holding public power; “Satire and criticism as the oxygen of democracy.”

What the news says

• Senior journalists Seema Chishti and Ajit Anjum, and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, have applied to the Supreme Court for permission to intervene in a long-pending case on the limits of legislative privilege.
• The central question is whether a House of Legislature can use its privilege powers to override the citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
• The case dates back to 2003, when The Hindu published an editorial criticising the then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa.
• The Assembly Speaker then got a resolution passed accusing the newspaper of having “distorted the proceedings of the Assembly” and of commenting contrary to what actually happened in the House.
• The resolution declared that the editorial amounted to a breach of privilege of the entire House under Article 194 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and immunities to members of State Legislatures. The Assembly also passed a resolution to arrest the editorial staff of The Hindu.
• N. Ravi, the then Editor, approached the Supreme Court, which stayed any coercive police action against the newspaper’s senior editors.

Recent instances 

• Karnataka (2017): The Assembly sentenced two editors of local tabloids to one year’s imprisonment over articles critical of legislators.
• Maharashtra (2020): Privilege proceedings were initiated against a television anchor over remarks made on air.
• Maharashtra (2025): Privilege proceedings were initiated against comedian Kunal Kamra over his satirical act ‘Naya Bharat’.
• These cases show that privilege has often been invoked against criticism of individual legislators or the government, rather than to protect the functioning of the House.

What are legislative privileges?

• Privileges are special rights, immunities and exemptions enjoyed by the Houses of Parliament and State Legislatures, their committees and their members.
• They exist so that legislators can perform their functions freely, without fear or obstruction, and so that the authority and dignity of the House are protected.
• Sources: the Constitution (Articles 105 and 194), laws made by Parliament, the Rules of each House, parliamentary conventions and judicial interpretation.
• Privileges extend to persons who have the right to speak in the House even though they are not members, such as Ministers, the Attorney General (Parliament) and the Advocate General (State Legislature). They do not extend to the President or the Governor, even though they are constituent parts of the legislature.

Constitutional provisions at a glance

Types of privileges

Breach of privilege and contempt of the House

How a privilege case is handled

• A member raises a question of privilege with the consent of the Speaker or Chairman (Rule 222 of the Lok Sabha Rules; Rule 187 of the Rajya Sabha Rules). States have similar rules.
• The Presiding Officer may decide it directly or refer it to the Committee of Privileges, which examines it and recommends action. The House takes the final decision.
• In the Lok Sabha, the Committee of Privileges has 15 members nominated by the Speaker; in the Rajya Sabha, it has 10 members nominated by the Chairman, and is headed by the Deputy Chairman.
• The House acts as accuser, judge and executioner in its own cause, which is the main reason why privilege proceedings against journalists and citizens attract criticism.

Why privileges remain uncodified

• Article 105(3) and 194(3) allow legislatures to define privileges by law, but neither Parliament nor any State has done so in over seven decades.
• Legislatures fear that once privileges are written into a statute, the law becomes “law” under Article 13 and can be struck down if it violates fundamental rights. Uncodified privileges flowing directly from the Constitution enjoy greater protection.
• Legislators also argue that codification would make privileges rigid and unable to respond to new situations.
• Critics respond that the absence of codification gives the House unlimited and unpredictable powers, which is inconsistent with fundamental rights. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) recommended that privileges be defined and delimited.
• Global practice: Australia codified parliamentary privilege through the Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1987, which narrowed the power to punish for mere criticism of the House. In the United Kingdom, a Joint Committee (1999) recommended codification, and its Parliament has largely stopped using penal powers against outsiders.

How courts have balanced privilege and fundamental rights

The core debate

Arguments for wide privilege powers

• Independence of the legislature: members must speak freely without fear of courts, the executive or pressure groups. Without this, the House cannot hold the government accountable.
• Protection against misreporting: deliberate distortion of proceedings can mislead the public and damage the credibility of the institution.
• Separation of powers: the legislature is the master of its own procedure, and Articles 122 and 212 respect this autonomy.
• Historical and comparative practice: the power to punish for contempt is an inherent attribute of legislatures in the Westminster tradition.

Arguments for limiting privilege powers

• No House can be judge in its own cause: the House decides the charge, hears the case and imposes punishment, which violates the principles of natural justice.
• Privilege is not a shield against criticism: criticism of a Chief Minister or a legislator is criticism of public conduct, which is the essence of democracy. Using privilege to jail editors creates a chilling effect on the press.
• Constitutional morality: in a constitutional democracy, the Constitution is supreme, not Parliament. Unlimited privilege mirrors the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which India did not adopt.
• Selective use: privilege is invoked mostly when the ruling side is criticised, which makes it a political tool.
• Functional necessity test: after Sita Soren (2024), a privilege must be necessary for the working of the House. Punishing a newspaper editorial or a comedy act is difficult to justify on this test.
• Uncertainty: since privileges are uncodified, citizens cannot know in advance what conduct is prohibited, which goes against the rule of law.

Way ahead

• Codify privileges through a law that lists them clearly and limits them to what is necessary for legislative functioning. (NCRWC)
• Exclude criticism from privilege: fair comment, satire and even harsh criticism of legislators should be outside the scope of breach of privilege, unless the publication obstructs the House’s work.
• Ensure natural justice: give notice, a fair hearing and a reasoned decision, and allow an appeal or judicial review.
• Prefer milder responses: a correction, a clarification or a reprimand should be preferred over arrest or imprisonment.
• Rely on existing laws: where criticism amounts to defamation, ordinary courts can deal with it.
• Self-regulation of the press: responsible reporting of proceedings, as protected under Article 361A, reduces the occasion for conflict.

Privileges were meant to protect the House so that it can serve the people, not to protect individual legislators from the people they serve. The seven-judge Bench has an opportunity to settle a question left open since 1959 and to restore the balance between a sovereign Constitution, an autonomous legislature and a free press.

Practice MCQ 

Q1. Consider the following statements regarding the privileges of State Legislatures in India:

I. Until defined by law, the privileges of a State Legislature are those it enjoyed immediately before the coming into force of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.

II. “Contempt of legislature” is one of the grounds of reasonable restriction listed under Article 19(2).

III. The Supreme Court has held that a legislator cannot claim privilege against prosecution for accepting a bribe to vote or speak in the House.

How many of the statements given above are correct?

(a) Only one     (b) Only two     (c) All three     (d) None

Answer: (b). Statement I is correct under Article 194(3). Statement II is incorrect; Article 19(2) mentions contempt of court, not contempt of legislature. Statement III is correct as held in Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024).

Q2. Consider the following statements:

Statement I: Courts in India can examine whether a privilege claimed by a State Legislature actually exists and what its extent is.

Statement II: Article 212 bars courts only from questioning legislative proceedings on the ground of irregularity of procedure, and not on the ground of illegality or unconstitutionality.

Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

(a) Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II explains Statement I

(b) Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II does not explain Statement I

(c) Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect

(d) Statement I is incorrect but Statement II is correct

Answer: (a). The limited bar under Article 212 is the basis on which the Supreme Court, in Keshav Singh (1964) and Raja Ram Pal (2007), held that courts can review the existence and exercise of privileges for illegality or unconstitutionality.

Mains Practice Question 

Legislative privileges are meant to protect the functioning of the House, not to shield legislators from public criticism. In the light of the conflict between Article 194(3) and Article 19(1)(a), examine whether there is a need to codify legislative privileges in India. (250 words, 15 marks)

PDF