Kunal Kamra moves Supreme Court in 7-judge bench case on limits of legislative privileges

Comedian Kunal Kamra has approached the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in a case pending before a seven-judge Bench of the Court on the extent to which an exercise of legislative privileges can be used to curtail a citizen’s freedom of speech. .Kamra has sought permission to be made party in the case of N Ravi and ors v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai, in which the Court is slated to examine the interplay of legislative privileges with the freedom of speech and the right to life and liberty. Kamra was prompted to move his plea for intervention on account of the breach of privilege proceedings that he presently faces before the Maharashtra assembly over a satirical song played on his comedy show ‘Naya Bharat.’Kamra’s satirical performance dwelt on the split of the Shiv Sena party in 2022, which led to the resignation of then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, and the eventual formation of a new State regime led by Eknath Shinde. In his song, Kamra also reportedly called Shinde ‘Gaddar’ (traitor).Due to this, he faced breach of privilege proceedings before the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on grounds that he disrespected and insulted Shinde. A criminal case was also registered against him. Kamra has already filed a plea to quash the criminal case before the Bombay High Court, which stayed his arrest but is yet to give its final verdict in the matter. Kamra has now sought to make submissions before the Supreme Court on the larger issue of the limits of legislative privilege. “The Applicant believes that his case demonstrates that the exercise of legislative privileges affects not only the freedom of speech and expression of members of the press, but also of any citizen who wishes to speak about the actions of members of the legislature,” his plea states. He goes on to argue that if legislative privilege is invoked in this manner, it would have a chilling effect on the free speech of citizens across India. He has highlighted that the proceedings against him has even made it difficult for him to secure a venue for his shows in Mumbai, and that he continues to face the risk of similar proceedings should he choose to comment on the actions of any member of any legislature in India.“It is disquieting that provisions of the Constitution can be deployed to discourage speech and commentary that concerns the actions of elected representatives,” the plea adds..The plea was drawn by advocate Arti Raghavan and filed through advocate Mansi Binjarajka..The N Ravi v. Speaker case, in which Kamra wants to intervene, is tied to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly’s 2003 resolution to arrest senior journalists of The Hindu. The privilege proceedings were initiated over an editorial article in The Hindu that criticised the ‘rising intolerance’ of the State government, then led by AIADMK leader J Jayalalithaa. The House had resolved to sentence editor N Ravi, executive editor Malini Parthasarthy, publisher S Rangarajan, chief of bureau V Jayant and special correspondent Radha Venkatesan to 15 days of imprisonment for breach of legislative privilege and contempt. Although arrest warrants were issued, the journalists were not ultimately arrested since the Supreme Court restrained any such move.The Court, in an order passed on December 8, 2003, also noted that the matter involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Articles 194 (3) and its interplay with Article 19 (1)(a) (freedom of speech) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution of India. The matter was, therefore, referred to a five-judge Bench. The following year (2004), however, the Court proceeded to refer the matter to seven judge Bench of the Court, after taking note that there seemed to be a conflict between a five-judge Bench ruling and a seven judge Bench ruling on related issues. The Court also took note of Senior Advocate Harish Salve’s (counsel for The Hindu journalists at the time) submission that the issue has very wide ramifications and needs to be authoritatively settled. This case, now listed before a seven-judge Bench, is slated to be heard on October 6, with the Court proposing to wrap up arguments by October 15.