Today, the Supreme Court closed a nearly two-decade-old seven-judge Constitution Bench reference concerning the interplay between legislative privileges and the fundamental right to freedom of speech, after noting that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had withdrawn the resolution that gave rise to the proceedings back in 2004.

A seven-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Aravind Kumar, PK Mishra, Joymalya Bagchi, Vipul Pancholi, Shree Chandrashekhar and V Mohana disposed of the reference as having become infructuous.

The Bench, however, left the larger questions of law open for consideration in an appropriate future case.

The reference arose from N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai, concerning the Tamil Nadu Assembly's 2003 decision to punish five journalists of The Hindu over articles critical of the then State Government.

During Tuesday's hearing, the Court noted that the 2003 resolution had been withdrawn by the Assembly in 2004. The Bench observed that this development had not been brought to its notice when the reference was made.

Since the cause of action underlying the reference no longer survived, the Court held that the proceedings had become infructuous and proceeded to close the matter.

After the order was dictated, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi remarked in a lighter vein that the Court had perhaps set two records — the shortest hearing and quickest disposal of a seven-judge matter.

The development came a day after Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Tamil Nadu, informed a three-judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant that the impugned Assembly resolution had already been revoked in 2004.

Ramachandran said an affidavit had been filed before the Court regarding the withdrawal, but the fact was apparently not noticed while the reference order was passed. He suggested that the reference may consequently have become academic.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also indicated that the issue may have become academic in view of the development.

CJI Surya Kant had observed that the Court would not undertake a purely academic exercise.

“If the issue survives, we will decide. If it doesn't, we can wait for a proper opportunity,” the CJI had said, adding that the seven-judge Bench could instead utilise the scheduled time to hear other part-heard matters.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, meanwhile, had submitted that the broader issue concerning the alleged misuse of legislative privileges was of “great significance”, even if the present reference had become academic.

Background

The case traces its origins to 2003, when The Hindu published an editorial titled “Rising Intolerance”, criticising the then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa and her government.

The Tamil Nadu Assembly subsequently alleged that the newspaper had distorted proceedings of the House and that the publication amounted to a breach of legislative privilege.

On November 7, 2003, then Speaker K. Kalimuthu passed a resolution holding that the publication constituted a breach of privilege and the Assembly later resolved to arrest members of the newspaper's editorial staff.

Following the resolution, police arrested The Hindu Editor N. Ravi, Executive Editor Malini Parthasarathy, Bureau Chief V. Jayant, Special Correspondent Radha Venkatesan and Publisher S. Rangarajan.

The journalists approached the Supreme Court challenging the Assembly's action. On November 10, 2003, a Bench comprising Justices YK Sabharwal and SB Sinha stayed their arrests, observing that the House appeared to have misapplied the law while initiating proceedings against them.

The proceedings subsequently raised a larger constitutional question concerning the relationship between legislative privileges and fundamental rights, particularly Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 194 of the Constitution.

The issue also brought into focus earlier Supreme Court decisions concerning the extent to which legislative privilege could operate against the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

In Pandit MSM Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha, the Supreme Court had examined the relationship between Article 19 and legislative privilege. In another decision concerning a Presidential Reference under Article 143, the Court had considered the interplay between fundamental rights and legislative privileges.

In December 2003, a two-judge Bench referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench, holding that substantial questions of law were involved. The five-judge Bench subsequently found conflicting views on the issue and referred the matter to a seven-judge Bench for authoritative determination.

The reference remained pending for more than two decades. In August 2026, the Supreme Court had scheduled the final hearing before the seven-judge Bench from October 6.

Ahead of the hearing, the Editors Guild of India, comedian Kunal Kamra, CPI(M) leader Subhashini Ali and journalists including Ajit Anjum, Seema Chishti, Dhanya Rajendran and Paranjoy Guha Thakurta had sought to intervene, arguing that legislative privileges should not be invoked against non-members in a manner that curtails press freedom.

With the withdrawal of the 2003 resolution now recorded, the Supreme Court has closed the present reference while leaving the constitutional questions open for determination in an appropriate case.

Case: N. Ravi v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai | W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 206-210/2003