Journalists, stand-up comedian try to interfere in legislative privilege vs. free speech case

Senior Journalist Seema Chishti. File | Photo credit: Nirmal Harindran

Several requests have been made to the Supreme Court for permission to intervene in a long-running case involving limitations on legislative prerogatives and whether the House of Legislatures can use its powers to suppress citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Separate applications for intervention were filed by senior journalists Seema Chishti and Ajit Anjum and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra in the case, which was referred to the seven-member Constitution Bench.

The bench is scheduled to hear the case on October 6.

The case in question dates back to 2003. The Hindu published an editorial criticizing the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalithaa. The Speaker of the House then adopted a resolution in the House, in which he accuses the newspaper of “distorting the proceedings of the House, expressing himself in contradiction to what is happening in the House”. The resolution said the comments made in the editorial “amount to a violation of the privileges of the entire House” under Article 194 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and immunity to members of state legislatures. The Tamil Nadu state assembly passed a resolution to arrest the editor of The Hindu.

N. Ravi, then editor of The Hindu, approached the Supreme Court, which stayed any coercive police action against the newspaper’s senior editors.

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the paper, argued against the use of Article 194(3) to curtail the freedom of the press enshrined in Article 19(1)(a). a) Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed to examine the broader legal issue of whether critical speech or publication would constitute a breach of legislative privilege.

After a long wait, in August 2026, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant scheduled the case to be presented to a seven-judge bench on 6 October.

Ms Chishti, represented by lawyer Neha Rathi, said the case was at its heart about the “constitutional balance between the legislature, the judiciary and a free press”.

“Legislative privileges and fundamental rights do not operate in separate, impermeable compartments, but must be read together, harmoniously, to give full effect to the constitutional system of democratic governance,” the petition submitted.

Mr. Anjum, also represented by Advocate Rath, argued that legislative privileges were granted to enable the House to effectively discharge its constitutional and legislative functions. He stated that these privileges were meant to serve a functional purpose rather than act as unlimited powers.

Mr. Kamra said he was directly affected by the privilege proceedings against him in the Maharashtra State Assembly over his performance in the stand-up comedy “Naya Bharat”. He stated that the exercise of the legislative prerogative to “stifle” the speech of citizens struck at the very heart of democracy.

Published – 30 Sep 2026 10:19 IST