New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday said it would not engage in an 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freedom of speech and expression after the Tamil Nadu Assembly said that the impugned resolution of 2003 was already withdrawn in 2004.

Legislative privileges issue: SC says no point in engaging in academic exercise

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was told by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Assembly, that since the seven-judge constitution is scheduled to sit from Tuesday, it is their duty to bring to the notice of the court that the issue may not survive as the resolution in question was withdrawn.

Ramachandran said he does 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.

CJI Kant said, "My suggestion will also be that don't get engaged in academic exercise. If the issue survives, we should proceed and decide it, but if the issue does not survive, then we should leave the question open and wait for the right time."

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, also appearing in the matter, supported the suggestion of the CJI and said that although the issue is important, it would be appropriate to adjudicate it when the issue arises.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also agreed with the suggestion and said there is no point in getting into the academic exercise.

The bench asked Ramachandran to place the resolution before the seven-judge bench, and the court will consider it on Tuesday and dispose of the issue.

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.

"It is evident that substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Articles 194, 19, 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 of 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 whether fundamental rights override legislative privileges.

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.

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.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.