The Supreme Court indicated on Monday that it will not pursue a theoretical constitutional review regarding the conflict between legislative privileges and fundamental rights, following confirmation that the underlying 2003 Tamil Nadu Assembly resolution had been rescinded two decades ago.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana directed that the 2004 withdrawal order be submitted on Tuesday before a scheduled seven-judge Constitution bench, which is expected to consider the development and formally dispose of the proceedings.
The disclosure came from senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Assembly, who apprised the court that the resolution sparking the dispute had been repealed in 2004. Ramachandran explained that the failure to place this revocation on record earlier appeared to be an oversight by counsel from both sides, noting that it was essential to bring the fact forward ahead of the seven-judge bench’s slated hearing.
Consensus Against Academic Review
Chief Justice Kant stated that the bench should refrain from undertaking an academic exercise, suggesting that if the dispute no longer survived, the court should leave the underlying legal question open for adjudication until an active controversy arises.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing in the matter, concurred with the bench’s approach, remarking that while the constitutional questions are significant, they would be better resolved when a live issue is presented. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta similarly agreed, submitting that pursuing the matter in the absence of a surviving dispute served no practical purpose.
Origins Of The Two-Decade Dispute
The case originated in late 2003 under the title N. Ravi and others versus Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Tamil Nadu, after the assembly’s then Speaker, K. Kalimuthu, ordered the arrest of journalist N. Ravi and several colleagues over allegations of contempt and breach of legislative privilege. The Supreme Court intervened at the time by staying the arrest of the six journalists.
In December 2003, the apex court referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution bench, highlighting substantial questions of law surrounding the interpretation of Article 194, fundamental freedoms under Article 19 and Article 21, and the interplay between them.
When the five-judge bench convened in December 2004, it identified conflicting rulings from past benches—one establishing that fundamental rights supersede legislative privileges, and a 1965 verdict holding that fundamental rights remain subordinate to parliamentary privileges. Consequently, the five-judge bench recommended placing the dispute before a seven-judge bench for an authoritative determination, which has remained pending since.
