JAMMU, Oct 5: Senior BJP leader and former Sarpanch Adv. Devraj Sharma today welcomed the Supreme Court’s cautious approach in dealing with the sensitive question of legislative privileges of MLAs and their interplay with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Reacting to the proceedings concerning the Tamil Nadu Assembly, Sharma said that the Court’s observation that it should not engage in an “academic exercise” when the disputed resolution had already been withdrawn reflects judicial prudence and respect for constitutional processes.
Sharma said the issue assumes considerable importance in a democracy where legislative privilege, fundamental rights and freedom of the press must operate within the framework of the Constitution. He observed that privileges granted to legislative institutions are intended to enable elected representatives to discharge their constitutional responsibilities without undue interference, but such privileges should never be misconstrued as an unrestricted power to suppress legitimate criticism, journalistic reporting or freedom of expression.
He said the case relating to journalists who faced action by the Tamil Nadu Assembly over alleged breach of privilege highlights the need for clarity on the constitutional boundaries of legislative privilege. “The legislature is a vital pillar of democracy, while an independent judiciary and a free media are equally indispensable to the functioning of a constitutional democracy. None should be viewed as being above the Constitution,” Sharma said.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the fact that the 2003 resolution had subsequently been withdrawn before proceeding further, Sharma said that the approach avoids unnecessary adjudication while keeping the larger constitutional questions open for determination when an appropriate and live dispute comes before the Court. He said this would also provide an opportunity for a larger Bench to examine the relationship between Articles 194(3), 19(1)(a) and other relevant constitutional provisions in a comprehensive manner.
Adv. Sharma further said that freedom of speech and expression is not merely an individual right but an essential foundation of democratic accountability. Journalists, elected representatives, civil society and citizens must be able to raise questions, scrutinise institutions and express differing viewpoints within the limits prescribed by law. At the same time, he stressed that freedom must be accompanied by responsibility, accuracy and respect for constitutional institutions.
He said the constitutional scheme requires harmony rather than confrontation among the legislature, executive, judiciary and media. “Privileges should protect the dignity and functioning of legislative institutions, while fundamental rights should protect the democratic space available to citizens. The answer lies in maintaining a constitutional balance rather than allowing one principle to completely eclipse another,” he maintained.
The BJP leader expressed confidence that whenever the substantive constitutional question comes before the appropriate larger Bench, the Supreme Court will provide authoritative guidance that strengthens both institutional dignity and citizens’ fundamental freedoms. He said such clarity is essential to ensure that parliamentary and legislative privileges remain instruments for effective democratic functioning and do not become a means of weakening transparency, accountability or legitimate public discourse.