NEW DELHI: In a brief hearing, the Supreme Court on Tuesday in its order closed the seven-judge constitution bench reference on legislative privileges vis-a-vis free speech, terming it as "infructuous".
The seven-judge constitution bench, headed by the Chief Justice Surya Kant, said the matter pending for nearly 20 years was constituted to decide the important questions but the very trigger has disappeared.
The apex court also comprising Justices Aravind Kumar, P K Mishra, Joymalya Bagchi, Vipul Pancholi, Shree Chandrashekhar and V Mohana disposed of the matter, after noting that the 2003 resolution of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly, which was the trigger for the case, was withdrawn in 2004.
While disposing of the matter as infructuous, the bench noted that the withdrawal of the impugned resolution skipped the notice of the Court while passing the reference order.
The court also observed that the cause of action for the reference has become infructuous, and closed the matter. However, it clarified that the questions of law are left open for adjudication in an appropriate case where such conflict arises again.
After the order was dictated by the top court, Senior Advocate A M Singhvi commented in a lighter vein that the Court has set two records - shortest hearing and quickest disposal of a 7-judge matter.
The case pertains to 2003, when journalist N Ravi and others approached the top court after the Tamil Nadu Assembly's then speaker K Kalimuthu ordered their arrest for alleged breach of privilege and contempt, after Assembly passed resolution.
The issue concerning the interpretation of provisions related to the scope of legislative privileges of MLAs and its interplay with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression was referred to a five-judge bench in December 2003, after journalists moved court.
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 on whether courts can review privilege.
One of the judgments had held that fundamental rights should prevail, while the 1965 verdict said fundamental rights were subservient to parliamentary privileges.
In December 2004, when the matter came up before the five-judge bench, it was informed of the conflicting views on the issue by two separate benches, requiring authoritative pronouncement.
The five-judge bench then recommended that the issue be placed before a seven-judge bench for authoritative determination on scope of privileges.
One of the pleas -- titled N Ravi and others versus Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Tamil Nadu raises the question whether fundamental rights override legislative privileges, which is still relevant for journalists.
On Monday, the Supreme Court suggested that it would not engage in the academic exercise while dealing with the interpretation of provisions related to the scope of legislative privileges of MLAs and its effect on the freedom of speech and expression after the Tamil Nadu Assembly told it that the impugned resolution of 2003 was already withdrawn in 2004.
On October 5, Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Assembly, told the SC that since the seven-judge constitution is scheduled to sit from Tuesday, (today) it is their duty to bring to the notice of the court that the issue may not survive as the resolution in question was withdrawn by House in 2004.
Ramachandran submitted to the court that he did not know how this fact of withdrawal of the resolution was not brought on record and may be a case of omission from lawyers of either side, and he has now found records.
