'Affects freedom of speech': Kunal Kamra moves SC over legislative privileges issue

Kunal Kamra seeks to join SC case examining the limits of MLAs' legislative privileges and their constitutional interplay with free speech NEW DELHI: Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in a case concerning the scope of legislative privileges enjoyed by 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. The issue, which has been pending before the court for over two decades, involves the interpretation of provisions including Articles 194(3), 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.Kamra said he was directly affected by the questions before the court because privilege proceedings are pending against him in the Maharashtra assembly over his stand-up special "Naya Bharat". The comedian argued that using legislative privilege "to stifle" citizens' speech strikes at the heart of democracy, news agency PTI reported."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,” PTI quoted Kamra saying in his plea. The comedian's special had triggered a controversy over jokes targeting Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde. BJP legislator Pravin Darekar subsequently moved a breach of privilege notice against Kamra and Shiv Sena (UBT) spokesperson Sushma Andhare.The broader legal issue was first referred to a five-judge Constitution bench in December 2003. The Supreme Court had noted that the matter involved substantial questions concerning Articles 194(3), 19(1)(a), their interplay, Article 21 and other constitutional provisions.When the matter came before the five-judge bench in December 2004, it was informed of conflicting views expressed by two separate benches. The bench subsequently recommended that the issue be placed before a seven-judge bench for an authoritative ruling. One of the cases, N Ravi and others versus speaker, legislative assembly, Tamil Nadu, arose after journalist N Ravi and others challenged then Tamil Nadu assembly speaker K Kalimuthu's order directing their arrest for alleged breach of privilege and contempt.The Supreme Court had stayed the arrest of six journalists and later referred the issue to a seven-judge bench after noting conflicting judgments. One judgment had held that fundamental rights should prevail over legislative privileges, while a 1965 verdict had held that fundamental rights were subservient to parliamentary privileges. Aastha Jha is a writer at The Times of India, covering politics. She also writes on business, global affairs, social issues, with a focus on policy, governance and their impact on everyday lives. Her work brings together reportage and analysis, tracking developments in India and abroad while examining the broader social and economic currents shaping public discourse.