Law & Justice

Supreme Court Declares Tamil Nadu Assembly Resolution Withdrawn, Leaves Legislative Privilege Question Unresolved

By Rizmi Lia M.

The Supreme Court dismissed a long‑pending reference about the balance between legislative privilege and free speech, following the withdrawal of a 2003 Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution that sought to arrest editors of The Hindu. The case began when The Hindu reported on speeches in the Tamil Nadu State Assembly. The Speaker moved a resolution accusing the newspaper of distorting proceedings and breaching the House’s privilege under Article 194 of the Constitution. The resolution called for the arrest of senior editorial staff. Police raided the newspaper’s Chennai office in an attempt to arrest its editors. In November 2003, N. Ravi, then editor of The Hindu, approached the Supreme Court. Senior advocate Harish Salve argued that Article 194(3) could not be used to restrict press freedom protected under Article 19(1)(a). The core question was whether critical reporting of legislative proceedings could amount to a breach of legislative privilege.

On 8 December 2003, Justices Y.K. Sabharwal and B.N. Krishna referred the matter to a five‑judge Constitution Bench, noting that it raised substantial questions about the interpretation of Articles 194(3), 19 and 21. A year later, the five‑judge Bench heard Salve’s submission that earlier decisions, including the 1959 Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha case and the 1964 Presidential Reference, had taken different views on the relationship between free speech and legislative privilege. The case was then referred to a seven‑judge Bench for an authoritative decision.

The matter remained pending for several years. On 12 October 2023, a seven‑judge Bench headed by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud impleaded the Union government and asked the Attorney General to assist the court. The case was listed again on 2 February 2024 for a procedural matter and came before Chief Justice Surya Kant on 12 August 2026.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Vipul Pancholi, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice V Mohana, disposed of the matter as infructuous because the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had withdrawn the 2003 resolution in 2004. The Court did not decide the larger constitutional questions concerning the scope of legislative privilege and its relationship with Article 19(1)(a). It left those questions of law open for consideration in an appropriate future case.

Legislative privilege is provided for in Article 105 for Parliament and Article 194(3) for State legislatures, allowing them to define their own powers, privileges and immunities. These privileges are intended to ensure that legislatures and their members can function independently and effectively, protecting speech and proceedings within the House. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees citizens the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, but Article 19(2) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom on specific grounds such as security, public order, decency, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the extent of these powers in the context of rights guaranteed outside the House unresolved. Published – October 08, 2026 03:58 pm IST