Kunal Kamra Moves SC On Legislative Privileges Of MLAs
Kamra seeks intervention in case examining legislative privilege and free speech.
Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra has approached the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in a case concerning the scope of legislative privileges available to MLAs and their interplay with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. A seven-judge Constitution bench is scheduled to begin hearing the matter on October 6, with the case involving important questions on the extent of legislative privileges.
In his plea, Kamra submitted that he is directly affected by the legal questions before the Supreme Court because privilege proceedings are pending against him in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly over his stand-up comedy special "Naya Bharat." He argued that the use of legislative privilege "to stifle" the speech of citizens strikes at the heart of democracy and said his case illustrates how such proceedings can affect people outside the legislature.
The comedy special had triggered controversy over jokes concerning Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. BJP legislator Pravin Darekar had moved a breach of privilege notice against Kamra and Shiv Sena (UBT) spokesperson Sushma Andhare. In his plea, Kamra said the issue was not limited to members of the press, arguing that legislative privileges could also affect citizens who seek to comment on or discuss the actions of members of the legislature.
Also Read: Two Kuki-Zo MLAs Attend Manipur Assembly In Person For First Time Since 2023
The constitutional issue before the Supreme Court was initially referred to a five-judge bench in December 2003. The court had noted that the matter involved substantial questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 194(3), 19(1)(a) and Article 21, as well as the relationship between legislative privileges and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
When the matter came before the five-judge bench in December 2004, the court was informed that two separate benches had expressed conflicting views on the issue. The five-judge bench subsequently recommended that the matter be placed before a seven-judge bench for an authoritative determination of the constitutional questions involved.
One of the cases before the court, titled N Ravi and others versus Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Tamil Nadu, concerns events in 2003 when journalist N Ravi and others approached the Supreme Court after Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker K Kalimuthu ordered their arrest for alleged breach of privilege and contempt. The Supreme Court stayed the arrest of six journalists and later referred the matter to a seven-judge bench after conflicting judgments emerged, including one holding that fundamental rights should prevail and a 1965 verdict stating that fundamental rights were subordinate to parliamentary privileges.
Also Read: Indian Navy's INS Ranvijay Makes Port Call At Oman's Salalah
