Click the Play button to listen to article

On October 6, 2026, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court disposed of one of the most significant constitutional references of the last two decades. The question was straightforward: can a state legislature use its privileges under Article 194(3) to punish a journalist for what they write? The answer, after 23 years: we will not say. Not today. Not in this case. Come back when someone else gets arrested.

The reference arose from the N. Ravi case. In April 2003, The Hindu published an editorial titled "Rising Intolerance," criticising the government of then Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa. The Tamil Nadu Assembly responded by passing a breach of privilege resolution. On November 7, 2003, Speaker K. Kalimuthu found the editorial constituted a breach. Police arrested five Hindu staff members within hours. The Supreme Court stayed the arrests three days later, but the constitutional question of what happens when Article 194(3) collides with Article 19(1)(a) remained unresolved.

A two-judge bench referred it to a five-judge Constitution Bench. That bench, finding conflicting precedents in Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha (1959) and the Presidential Reference under Article 143 (1965), sent it further to a seven-judge bench. There it sat. For over two decades.

The disposal

When the matter finally came up before CJI Surya Kant's bench on October 6, the hearing lasted minutes. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Tamil Nadu, informed the court that the state assembly had revoked the 2003 resolution in 2004. An affidavit to that effect had been filed years ago, but the referral order had somehow missed it. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, agreed the matter had become academic. CJI Surya Kant observed that the court would not engage in "a mere academic exercise." The bench disposed of the reference as infructuous.

Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi remarked that it was perhaps the quickest disposal of a seven-judge bench matter in the Court's history.

What remains unsettled

Article 194(3) gives state legislatures the same privileges as the House of Commons enjoyed at the time of India's independence. Those privileges include the power to punish for contempt or breach of privilege. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees every citizen the right to free speech. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. The 2003 arrest showed what happens when a legislature decides that a newspaper editorial constitutes contempt. The question of whether the Constitution permits this remains without an answer.

This is not a theoretical concern. Between 2019 and 2025, at least 14 breach of privilege motions were moved in state assemblies against journalists, editors, and media organisations. In 2022, the Karnataka Assembly's privileges committee summoned two journalists for reporting on proceedings that a member found embarrassing. In 2024, the Maharashtra Assembly issued notices to a digital news portal for a report on floor management during a trust vote. None of these cases reached the Supreme Court. But each of them operated in the same legal vacuum that the N. Ravi reference was meant to fill.

The editors and journalists who intervened in the case understood this. The Editors Guild of India, comedian Kunal Kamra, activist Subhashini Ali, and journalists Ajit Anjum, Seema Chishti, Dhanya Rajendran, and Paranjoy Guha Thakurta all filed applications arguing that the Court should settle the law regardless of the Tamil Nadu resolution. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the bench that misuse of legislative privileges remained a matter of "great significance." The bench was not persuaded.

The pattern

The Court's reluctance to decide constitutional questions in the absence of a live dispute is doctrinally defensible. Indian courts do not issue advisory opinions except under Article 143. But this particular reluctance has a cost. The N. Ravi reference was not the first time the Court deferred this question. The five-judge bench could have decided it. It chose to refer upward. The seven-judge bench could have framed the issue for a future case. It chose to close the file.

The result is that the constitutional position on legislative privilege versus press freedom in India remains governed by two conflicting 1950s-era decisions, neither of which addressed the post-1978 expansion of Article 21 or the contemporary press landscape. A state assembly can still, in theory, pass a resolution finding a breach of privilege against a journalist, direct police to arrest them, and claim constitutional protection for doing so. The journalist's remedy is to approach the Supreme Court, hope for a stay, and wait for the Court to decide whether to decide.

The N. Ravi case took 23 years to reach that point. The next journalist who is arrested at 2 a.m. for an editorial a Chief Minister did not like will start the clock again from zero.

What the Court could do

The bench left the constitutional questions "open for an appropriate case." That is an invitation. But appropriate cases do not announce themselves in advance. They arrive as emergencies, as they did in November 2003. When a journalist is arrested under a privilege motion, the Court will need to act quickly. It will not have the luxury of a 23-year reference. It would have helped to have the law settled before the next arrest, not after.

The Court often says that constitutional questions should not be decided in a vacuum. That is sound. But the space between deciding questions in a vacuum and waiting for a journalist to be arrested is not empty. It is where the deterrent effect of legislative privilege operates unchecked, where editors self-censor, where privilege committees issue summons knowing that no definitive judicial limit exists.

October 6 was the day the Supreme Court could have drawn that limit. It chose to wait. The question is whether the next journalist can afford to.

Author Bhavya Razshree is an Advocate practicing at Delhi High Court & Aditya Ashok is a public policy consultant. Views are personal. 

Tags: