New Delhi, Senior TV journalist Ajit Anjum has approached the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in a case on the interpretation of provisions related to the scope of legislative privileges of MLAs and its effect on the freedom of speech and expression.
Earlier, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and journalist Seema Chishti moved the top court seeking nod to intervene and assist in the upcoming hearing on legal questions about how far the special powers and privileges of state legislatures can extend, particularly when those powers come into conflict with fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and personal liberty.
A seven-judge constitution bench would commence hearing on October 6 on the interpretation of provisions related to the scope of legislative privileges of MLAs and its effect on the freedom of speech and expression.
Anjum has filed the intervention application in the 2003 petitions filed by The Hindu journalist N Ravi against the Tamil Nadu assembly, which had sentenced them to 15 days’ simple imprisonment for alleged breach of privilege.
The court, in its August 12, 2026 order, identified substantial questions concerning the limits of legislative privileges under Article 194(3) and their interplay with Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.
Anjum, in his application filed through lawyer Neha Rathi, said that case has implications beyond the dispute involving the individual petitioners.
He submits that the proceedings concern the constitutional relationship among the Legislature, Judiciary and the free press.
The plea urges the top court to examine the scope and limits of legislative privilege, when criticism or reporting of legislative proceedings could constitute a breach of privilege, the permissible limits of punitive powers exercised by legislative bodies, and the constitutional protection available to journalists, publishers and citizens engaged in fair and accurate reporting of legislative bodies.
“The questions arising for consideration in the present proceedings are not confined to the dispute between the parties before this Hon’ble Court, but touch upon the fundamental constitutional relationship subsisting between the Legislature, the Judiciary and the free press,” the plea said.
The issue concerning the interpretation of provisions related to the scope of legislative privileges of MLAs and its interplay with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression was referred to a five-judge bench in December 2003.
“It is evident that substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Articles 194(3), 19(1)(a), interplay between these two articles, Article 21 and also as to the interpretation of other provisions of the Constitution of India are involved,” the apex court had said in its December 8, 2003 order.
In December 2004, when the matter came up before the five-judge bench, it was informed about the conflicting views on the issue by two separate benches.
The five-judge bench then recommended that the issue be placed before a seven-judge bench for authoritative determination.
One of the pleas — titled N Ravi and others versus Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Tamil Nadu — raises the question about whether fundamental rights override legislative privileges.
The case pertains to 2003 when journalist N Ravi and others approached the top court after the then Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker K Kalimuthu ordered their arrest for alleged breach of privilege and contempt.
The top court had then stayed the arrest of six journalists and later referred the matter to a seven-judge bench in view of conflicting verdicts.
One of the judgements had held that fundamental rights should prevail, while the 1965 verdict said fundamental rights were subservient to parliamentary privileges.
