New Delhi, Oct 1 Human rights organisation People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), former MP Subhashini Ali and journalist Narendra Nath Mishra have 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 their effect on the freedom of speech and expression.
Earlier, journalists Ajit Anjum and Seema Chishti, and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra had moved the court seeking its 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 their effect on the freedom of speech and expression.
The PUCL, in its plea filed through lawyer Aarthi Rajan, said the reference to the Constitution bench "raises questions of exceptional public importance concerning the nature and limits of legislative privilege under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution, the availability of judicial review when such privilege is exercised against citizens, and the relationship between parliamentary privilege and the guarantees contained in Part III, particularly Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21".
The NGO said the cases concern the invocation of parliamentary privilege against members of the press in respect of their publication, followed by coercive processes including summons and warrants.
Seeking intervention, the plea said that the outcome of the present proceedings would have implications extending beyond the parties presently before the court.
"The issues bear directly upon journalists, publishers, researchers, civil society organisations and citizens engaged in public discussion on legislative and public affairs. The principles laid down by this Hon'ble Court will thus have systemic consequences for democratic discourse and civic participation," it said.
Ali, former Lok Sabha MP who served as a member of the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) from 2014 to 2024, has also sought to intervene in the matter.
Mishra, through lawyer Ujjwal Singh, also moved the application seeking leave to intervene in the proceedings.
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.
"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 of whether fundamental rights override legislative privileges.
The case pertains to 2003 when journalist 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 judgments had held that fundamental rights should prevail, while the 1965 verdict said fundamental rights were subservient to parliamentary privileges.
