Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B.Phani Kumar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 November, 2025
APHC010296012025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION Nos: 14697 & 14801 OF 2025
W.P.No.14697 Of 2025
Between:
1. DHANJANJAYA REDDY RAKKASI, S/O. VENKAT REDDY, AGED 45
YEARS, WORKING AS EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER SAKSHI
TELUGU DAILY 6-3-249/1, SAKSHI TOWERS, ROAD NUMBER-1,
BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500034. PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT FLAT 411, ASHOKA LIVIANO TOWERS, PUPPALAGUDA,
NARSINGI SERVICE ROAD, NEAR MY HOME AVATAR,
HYDERABAD-500089.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES, ANDHRA PRADESH
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON,
ASSEMBLY BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
3. THE SECRETARY GENERAL TO LEGISLATIVE, LEGISLATURE
(LEGN) SECRETARIAT, ANDHRA PRA4ESH LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, ASSEMBLY BUILDINGS, VELHGAPUDI, AMARAVATI,
2
GUNTUR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GINJUPALLI SUBBA RAO
2. GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS WRIT PETITION No.14801/2025 Between:
1. B.PHANI KUMAR,, S/O. B.VENKATA RAO, AGED 45 YEARS, WORKING AS CHIEF REPORTER, SAKSHI TELUGU DAILY, 6-3-
249/1, SAKSHI TOWERS, ROAD NUMBER-1, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500034. R/O. 41-5/1-10, GARIKAPATIVARI STREET, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES, ANDHRA PRADESH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, ASSEMBLY BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE SECRETARY GENERAL TO LEGISLATIVE, LEGISLATURE (LEGN.) SECRETARIAT, ANDHRA PRADESH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, ASSEMBLY BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
3Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V MAHESWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GINJUPALLI SUBBA RAO
2. GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel appearing through online, assisted by Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.14697 of 2025; Sri V. Maheswar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.14801 of 2025 and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General for the Respondent No.1 in both the Writ Petitions.
2. The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.14697 of 2025 is an Editor, Printer and Publisher of Telugu Daily Newspaper „Sakshi‟. The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.14801 of 2025 is the Chief Reporter of the same Telugu Daily Newspaper „Sakshi‟. The Secretary General of the Legislature of the State of Andhra Pradesh had issued Notices to both the Writ Petitioners on 03.06.2025 directing them to file their responses in respect of a Privilege Motion initiated by the Committee for Legislative Privileges, Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly.
3. The prayer sought in W.P.No.14697 of 2025 is as under:
"....... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a „Writ of Mandamus‟ or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the action of Respondent No.1 in initiating proceedings for breach of privilege pursuant to the Notice dated 25.02.2025 and consequential Letters No.65/Legn./2025-11 and 65/Legn./2025-13 dated 03.06.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent, as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and illegal, and the subject publication not being comprehended within the term or meaning of the 4 expression 'privilege of the House' as per the pronouncements of Supreme Court in inter-alia State of Karnataka v. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 608; Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184; State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, (2021) 17 SCC 318, and consequently quash the same as being violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".
The facts in these Writ Petitions:
4. The news item was published in the Telugu Daily Newspaper „Sakshi‟ on 22.02.2025 titled as "Kotlu Karchu ... Shikshana Tussu" (Ex.P.3). Literally, the English translation of this Title would mean that crores of rupees have been spent but training the legislators is a „damp squib‟, in other words „an utter flop‟. The context for this news item seems to be that the A.P State Legislature, through the Speaker, has conceived a training session for the Members of the Legislative Assembly; that after having invited several top Dignitaries including the Former Vice Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha etc., and after having booked several rooms in the Hotels, mid-way, the Programme got fizzled-out due to several exigencies. It is reported in the newspaper that crores of public money had been spent wastefully due to the fact that the elementary safeguards were not adhered to by the concerned. This is understood from the plain reading of the news item in Telugu Vernacular. Unfortunately, the English translation filed by the Writ Petitioners does not even convey the half of the meaning.
5. As the said news item published in „Sakshi‟ dated 22.02.2025 (Ex.P.3) was critical in nature that crores of public money has been wastefully spent, one Sri G. Jayasurya, a sitting M.L.A, had addressed a Letter to the Hon‟ble Speaker dated 25.02.2025 (Ex.P.2) seeking permission to rise and initiate discussion on this news item on the floor of the house on 25.02.2025 and also to initiate a „Motion‟ for „breach of Privilege of the House‟. However, the Hon‟ble Speaker of the Legislative Assembly had referred the issue to the Privileges Committee.
56. The Privileges Committee, in its sitting held on 02.06.2025, had considered the Letter of the M.L.A dated 25.02.2025 and the Reference by the Hon‟ble Speaker and had decided to seek response/explanation from the Publishers (Writ Petitioners herein) within one week.
7. The Secretary General of the A.P State Legislative Assembly, in response to the decision of the Committee of Privileges of the Legislature, had addressed a Letter to the Writ Petitioners herein on 03.06.2025 (Exs.P.1 & P.4 respectively), requiring the Writ Petitioners to submit their response/ explanation within one week.
8. Responding to the said Letter of the Secretary General dated 03.06.2025, the Writ Petitioners herein had addressed a Letter seeking three more weeks time (Exs.P.5 & P.6 respectively) for the purpose of giving a detailed explanation. On 13.06.2025, the Secretary General had addressed a Letter to the Writ Petitioners informing them that a request for extension of time is favourably considered by the Committee of Legislative Privileges.
9. However, having been aggrieved by the initiation of Proceedings for breach of the Privileges of the House (Legislative Assembly), the Writ Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions on or about 18.06.2025.
10. It transpires from the record that the Writ Petitioners have submitted their responses on 28.06.2025 to the Show Cause Notice dated 03.06.2025. These responses dated 28.06.2025 are also placed on record vide Memo dated 07.07.2025.
11. The Secretary General of the A.P State Legislative Legislature has filed the Counter Affidavit on 21.08.2025.
12. Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel appearing through online, assisted by Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has made submissions in W.P.No.14697 of 2025 and Sri V. Maheswar Reddy, 6 learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has made submissions in W.P.No.14801 of 2025.
13. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Writ Petitioners have not committed any breach of Privilege, inasmuch as the news item published by the Writ Petitioners does not cause breach to the Privilege of the House. It is also submitted that the Letter addressed by the Member of Legislative Assembly namely Sri G. Jayasurya is false and is misleading, and therefore, the Hon‟ble Speaker ought not to have referred the issue to the Committee of Legislative Privileges under Rule 173 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as „Assembly Rules‟). Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Articles 194, 208, 212 and 361A of the Constitution of India. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
14. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Assembly Rules, which are promulgated under Clause (1) of Article 208 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to Rules 168, 169, 172, 256 to 258. Relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and the Assembly Rules are usefully extracted hereunder :
Relevant provisions of the Constitution of India "Article 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.--
(1) All citizens shall have the right--
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions [or co-operative societies;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
(f)[* * * *
*]
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.7
(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of [the sovereignty and integrity of India], the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
Article 194. Powers, privileges, etc., of the Houses of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof.--
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of the Legislature, there shall be freedom of speech in the Legislature of every State.
(2) No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
(3) In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of a House of the Legislature of a State, and of the members and the committees of a House of such Legislature, shall be such as may from time to time be defined by the Legislature by law, and, until so defined, 1[shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately before the coming into force of section 26 of the Constitution (Forty-
fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
(4) The provisions of clauses (1), (2) and (3) shall apply in relation to persons who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, a House of the Legislature of a State or any committee thereof as they apply in relation to members of that Legislature.
Article 208. Rules of procedure.--
(1) A House of the Legislature of a State may make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business.
8(2) Until rules are made under clause (1), the rules of procedure and standing orders in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution with respect to the Legislature for the corresponding Province shall have effect in relation to the Legislature of the State subject to such modifications and adaptations as may be made therein by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, or the Chairman of the Legislative Council, as the case may be.
(3) In a State having a Legislative Council the Governor, after consultation with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Chairman of the Legislative Council, may make rules as to the procedure with respect to communications between the two Houses.
Article 212. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature.--
(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.
Article 361A. Protection of publication of proceedings of Parliament and State Legislatures.--
(1) No person shall be liable to any proceedings, civil or criminal, in any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper of a substantially true report of any proceedings of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State, unless the publication is proved to have been made with malice:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the publication of any report of the proceedings of a secret sitting of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State.
(2) Clause (1) shall apply in relation to reports or matters broadcast by means of wireless telegraphy as part of any programme or service provided by means of a 9 broadcasting station as it applies in relation to reports or matters published in a newspaper.
Explanation.--In this article, "newspaper" includes a news agency report containing material for publication in a newspaper.]"
Relevant Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly "168. A member may, with the consent of the Speaker, raise a question involving a breach of privilege either of a member or of the House or of a Committee thereof.
169. A member wishing to raise a question of privilege shall give notice in writing to the Secretary before the commencement of the sitting on the day the question of privilege is proposed to be raised. If the question of privilege raised is based on a document, the notice shall be accompanied by the document.
172. If leave under rule 171 is granted, the House may consider the question and come to a decision or refer it to the Committee of Privileges on a motion made either by the member who has raised the question of privilege or by any other member.
173. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Speaker may refer any question of privilege to the Committee of Privileges for examination, investigation and report.
256. At the commencement of the House or from time to time, as the case may be the Speaker shall nominate a Committee of Privileges consisting of not more than seven members.
Provided that a Minister shall not be nominated a member of the committee, and that if a member, after his nomination to the Committee is appointed as a Minister he shall cease to be a member of the Committee from the date of such appointment.
257.(1) The Committee shall examine every question referred to it and determine with reference to the facts of each case whether breach of Privilege is involved and if so 10 the nature of the breach, the circumstances leading to it and make such recommendations as it may deem it.
(2) The report may also state the procedure to be followed by the House in giving effect to the recommendations made by the Committee.
258. (1) After the report has been presented, the Chairman or any member of the Committee or any other member may move that the report be taken into consideration where upon the Speaker may put the question to the House.
(2) Before putting the question to the House, the Speaker may permit a debate on the motion, not exceeding half-an-
hour in duration, and such debate shall not refer to the details of the report further than is necessary to make out a case for the consideration of the report by the House.
(3) After the motion made under sub-rule(1) is agreed to the Chairman or any member of the Committee or any other member, as the case may be, may move that the House agrees, or disagrees or agrees with amendments, with the recommendations contained in the report."
15. The Writ Petitioners would contend that their newspaper publication does not amount to breach of Legislative Privilege because the content has neither touched upon the Proceedings which took place on the floor of the house nor has it rebuked any member of the House. It is also submitted that the said Article has not excoriated the conduct of the „House‟ as such. It is submitted that the newspaper item has reported wasteful expenditure of public money without achieving the desired result namely the training that is sought to be given to the present Members of the Legislative Assembly. The Article would indicate that the splurge of public money could have been avoided, if proper due diligence was exercised before fixing this Programme.
16. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to a catena of Judgments rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court for the purpose of drawing a distinction between the nature of publication that would amount to breach of Legislative 11 Privileges and the nature of publication which does not attract contempt arising out of breach of Legislative Privilege.
17. Such of those decisions/precedents relied on by the Learned Senior Counsel are noticed hereunder along with mentioning of the relevant paragraphs. For the sake of brevity, this Court does not intend to extract the portions of all the decisions cited by the Learned Senior Counsel. This Court would extract such of those relevant portions that are found to be necessary.
18. Learned Counsel has relied on Judgment in C. Subramaniam Vs. Honourable the Speaker of the Madras Legislative Assembly : (1969) 1 Mad LJ 163 (FB) : AIR 1969 Mad 10 (FB).
19. In N. Ravi and Others Vs. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai and Others (Coram-5) : (2005) 1 SCC 603 (vide Order dated 08.12.2004). The issue concerning interplay between Article 194 and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India had been referred to a Larger Bench (This case is still pending).
20. In Kalpana Mehta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (Coram-5) : (2018) 7 SCC 1, Learned Senior Counsel relied on Para Nos.9, 45, 346, 430 & 449.
21. In Ajit Mohan, Vice-President and Managing Director of Petitioner 2 Facebook India Online Services Private Limited and Others Vs. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others :
(2022) 3 SCC 529, Learned Senior Counsel has relied on Para Nos.11, 12, 13 to 15, 60, 75, 76, 83, 173, 174 & 175.
22. In Sita Soren Vs. Union of India (Coram-7) : (2024) 5 SCC 629, Learned Senior Counsel has relied on Para Nos.77, 81, 84, 87, 95 & 96.
23. Learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through various paragraphs of the Judgment in Sita Soren‟s case (referred supra), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has discussed the legal implications of the Judgments of 12 the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Special Reference No.1 of 1964 and the case of Amarinder Singh Vs. Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha : (2010) 6 SCC 113. The discussion in Raja Ram Pal Vs. Hon‟ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others : (2007) 3 SCC 184 on the „Historical Perspectives‟ etc.,. Insofar as the interplay between the fundamental rights of the Citizens and the privileges of the Houses of the Parliament or Legislature, as noted above, the same is pending before a Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in N. Ravi and Others Vs. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chennai and Others (referred supra). He would urge this Court to defer this case till the disposal of N. Ravi‟s Case pending before the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
24. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Para Nos.84 & 87, 95 & 96 in Sita Soren‟s case (referred supra), which reads as under:
84. The understanding which unequivocally emerges supports the claim that the privileges which accrue to Members of the House individually are not an end in themselves. The purpose which privileges serve is that they are necessary for the House and its Committees to function. Therefore, we may understand parliamentary privileges as those rights and immunities which allow the orderly, democratic, and smooth functioning of Parliament and without which the essential functioning of the House would be violated.
87. The privileges enshrined under Article 105 and Article 194 of the Constitution are of the widest amplitude but to the extent that they serve the aims for which they have been granted. The framers of the Constitution would not have intended to grant to the legislatures those rights which may not serve any purpose for the proper functioning of the House. The privileges of the Members of the House individually bear a functional relationship to the ability of the House to collectively fulfil its functioning and vindicate its authority and dignity. In other words, these freedoms are necessary to be in furtherance of fertilising a deliberative, critical, and responsive democracy. In State of Kerala v. K. Ajith [State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, (2021) 17 SCC 318] , one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) held that a Member of the Legislature, the Opposition included, has a 13 right to protest on the floor of the legislature. However, the said right guaranteed under Article 105(1) of the Constitution would not exclude the application of ordinary criminal law against acts not in direct exercise of the duties of the individual as a Member of the House. This Court held that the Constitution recognises privileges and immunities to create an environment in which Members of the House can perform their functions and discharge their duties freely. These privileges bear a functional relationship to the discharge of the functions of a legislator. They are not a mark of status which makes legislators stand on an unequal pedestal.
95. The necessity test for ascertaining parliamentary privileges has struck deep roots in the Indian context. We do not need to explore the well-established jurisprudence on the necessity test in other jurisdictions beyond the above exposition of Indian jurisprudence on the subject at this juncture. The evolution of parliamentary privileges in various parliamentary jurisdictions has shown a consistent pattern that when an issue involving privileges arises, the test applied is whether the privilege claimed is essential and necessary to the orderly functioning of the House or its Committee. We may also note that the burden of satisfying that a privilege exists and that it is necessary for the House to collectively discharge its function lies with the person or body claiming the privilege. The Houses of Parliament or Legislatures, and the Committees are not islands which act as enclaves shielding those inside from the application of ordinary laws. The lawmakers are subject to the same law that the law-making body enacts for the people it governs and claims to represent.
96. We therefore hold that the assertion of a privilege by an individual Member of Parliament or Legislature would be governed by a two-fold test. First, the privilege claimed has to be tethered to the collective functioning of the House, and second, its necessity must bear a functional relationship to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator.
(emphasis supplied)
25. The above extract would deal with the tests which are required to be applied for finding out whether the privilege claimed is essential and necessary to orderly functioning of the House or its Committee. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the burden of satisfying that a Privilege exists and that it 14 is necessary for the House to collectively discharge its functions lies with a person or the body claiming the Privilege. The Hon‟ble Apex Court had prescribed a two-fold tests to the effect that firstly the Privilege claimed has to be tethered to the collective functioning of the House and secondly its necessity must bear a functional relationship to the discharge of the essential duties of a Legislator. By placing reliance on this reasoning, Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the impact of the newspaper publication in question would not have any adverse bearing on the collective functioning of the House and that the same does not bear any functional relationship to the discharge of essential duties of the individual Legislators. He would therefore submit that the reference of the complaint of the M.L.A to the Committee of Legislative Privileges is wholly illegal inasmuch as the said action does not stand to the two tests prescribed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, which are extracted hereinabove.
26. Learned Advocate General representing Respondent No.1 has principally submitted that the issuance of notice for breach of Privilege of the Legislative Assembly is only at a threshold stage, and therefore, the Constitutional Courts ought not to exercise their Writ Jurisdiction to interfere at this stage. He would submit that there cannot be a Judicial Review of a Show Cause Notice, inasmuch as the impugned action, for taking the issues to a logical end, will have to pass the tests at several stages. He would submit that a preliminary Show Cause Notice is only issued seeking an explanation from the Writ Petitioners herein. He would submit, by placing reliance on various decisions, that the Committee of Legislative Privileges may consider the explanation and may recommend to the House to either drop the Proceeding or to proceed. He would also submit that even, if the Committee of Legislative Privileges makes a recommendation to initiate action for a contempt against the Writ Petitioners, it is again for the larger body namely the Legislative Assembly to consider the Report of the Privileges Committee and react. In the event that the House finds that the Writ Petitioners have not committed any breach, the House has got the liberty to drop the Proceedings.
15Learned Advocate General would submit that the present Writ Petitions are premature.
27. Learned Advocate General has placed reliance on C. Subramaniam Vs. Honourable the Speaker of the Madras Legislative Assembly : (1969) 1 Mad LJ 163 (FB) : AIR 1969 Mad 10 (FB).
28. Learned Advocate General, by placing reliance on the above Judgment, would submit that the present Writ Petitions under the circumstances are premature in nature.
29. Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the last paragraph of C. Subramaniam case. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court had held that a Writ of Prohibition cannot be issued by the Court at the stage of Show Cause Notice as the same would tantamount to stifling the exercise of jurisdiction. In response to the submission made by Sri S. Sriram, Learned Senior Counsel that the issue regarding the interplay between the Articles 194 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is pending before the Larger Bench before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in N. Ravi‟s Case, and therefore, the impugned proceeding initiated by the Committee of Legislative Privileges should await for the final outcome from the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the Learned Advocate General opposing the same, has placed a reliance on Para No.35 of the Judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Union Territory of Ladakh and Others Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Another : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1140 on the preposition that the judicial decisions cannot be postponed awaiting an outcome of a Reference or a Review Petition before the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
30. Learned Advocate General has extensively referred to the Facebook‟s case (referred supra). Interestingly, Learned Senior Counsel on both sides have placed extensive reliance on this Judgment. Learned Advocate General has placed reliance on Para Nos.174, 184, 191, 193 & 194 on various prepositions of law.
1631. Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to Para No.174 of the Facebook‟s case (referred supra), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court had sounded a word of caution to the High Courts not to interfere at the stage of threshold, since the Proceedings have to go a long way. It is stated that even, if there is a breach of Privilege recorded by the Committee of Legislative Privileges, the Committee of Legislative Privileges would in turn have to make a recommendation to the Assembly and that the Assembly would then be entitled to consider whether it is a fit case to exercise the power of breach of Privilege or not. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has also stated that in many cases the Assembly had considered that it is not worthwhile to proceed further, even if the Committee has expressed prima facie opinion for the same cause. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has noted that there are various types of scrutiny before the culmination of exercise of power of privilege and that none of those eventualities have at all arisen in the present cases.
32. Learned Advocate General has also drawn the attention of this Court to Para Nos.177 of the Facebook‟s case (referred supra) on the preposition that at the threshold stage, the Court cannot create an artificial division between the core/essential and non-essential functions of the Legislature.
Analysis:
33. The concept of Privileges of House of Legislature and Judicial Interference was extensively dealt by the Hon‟ble Apex court in the following judgments:
1. Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 11
2. Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Dr. Krishna Sinha, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 157
3. Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures, In re, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 21 17
4. Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184
5. Amarinder Singh v. Punjab Vidhan Sabha, (2010) 6 SCC 113
6. Lokayukta, Justice Ripusudan Dayal v. Stateof M.P., (2014) 4 SCC 473
7. Markandey Katju v. Lok Sabha, (2017) 2 SCC 384
8. Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1
9. State of Kerala v. K. Ajith, (2021) 17 SCC 318
10. Sita Soren v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 629
34. The Hon‟ble Apex Court had made a thread-bear discussion and also made a comparative analysis between the Law of Privilege prevailing in the United Kingdom and in India. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Raja Ram Pal‟s case (referred supra) has held that the power of privilege is subject to the limitation prescribed by the Constitution of India unlike in United Kingdom because of the fact that supremacy of the Parliament governs the field in United Kingdom.
35. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sita Soren‟s case (referred supra) had prescribed a two-fold test for exercise the power of Privilege. The relevant Para Nos.95 and 96 of the Judgment are extracted hereinabove. There is no doubt that the House shall apply two tests in the present case.
36. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has also expressed confidence in the wisdom of the Committee of Legislative Privileges in the Special Reference No.1 of 1964 : (1965) 1 SCR 413. The Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, speaking through Hon‟ble Sri Justice A.K. Sarkar, had held in the last paragraph in Page No.541 as under :
"I wish to add that I am not one of those who feel that a Legislative Assembly cannot be trusted with an absolute power of committing for con-tempt. The legislatures have by the Constitution been expressly entrusted with much more important things. During the fourteen years that the Constitution has been in operation, the legislatures have not done anything to justify the view that they do not deserve to be trusted with power. I would point out that though Article 211 is not enforceable, the legislatures have shown an 18 admirable spirit of restraint and have not even once in all these years discussed the conduct of Judges. We must not lose faith in our people, we must not think that the legislatures would misuse the powers given to them by the Constitution or that safety lay only in judicial correction. Such correction may produce friction and cause more harm than good. In a modern State it is often necessary for the good of the country that parallel powers should exist in different authorities. It is not inevitable that such powers will clash. It would be defeatism to take the view that in our country men would not be available to work these powers smoothly and in the best interests of the people and without producing friction. I sincerely hope that what has happened will never happen again and our Constitution will be worked by the different organs of the State amicably, wisely, courageously and in the spirit in which the makers of the Constitution expected them to act."
37. The Constitution Bench of Hon‟ble Apex Court has expressed confidence in the wisdom of the Legislature 60 years ago by expressing hope that the Legislatures would not misuse the powers given by the Constitution.
38. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju Vs. The Lok Sabha and Another : (2017) 2 SCC 384 had also sounded a word of caution with regard to the exercise of power of contempt for breach of Privilege of the House that the action of the Citizens must interfere with the fundamental functioning of the House so as to enable the House to initiate any Proceeding against the Citizen. Para No.37 of the Judgment is usefully extracted hereunder:
"37. If any action is sought to be initiated against any citizen, whether Member or non-Member, either in exercise of contempt or breach of privilege, the law that has developed is that the action of such citizen must have interfered with fundamental functioning of the House so as to enable the House to initiate any proceedings against the citizen. The petitioner is right that in cases concerning breach of privilege or contempt such aspect whether the actions of the citizen had interfered with the functioning of the Houses, is crucial and fundamental. But in the present case no action for either breach of privilege or contempt was initiated or exercised. Chapter 20 of the Lok Sabha Rules entitled privileges and Rules 222 to 228 thereof deal with matters of privileges. Similarly Rules 187 to 203 of the Rajya Sabha Rules deal 19 with issues concerning privileges. If an action for breach of privilege was initiated, the enquiry would certainly be on the lines submitted by the petitioner, in that whether his remarks had in any way impeded or interfered with the functioning of the Houses."
39. In the above premise, the following principles are deduced :
i. Decisions rendered by the Committee of Legislative Privileges and the State Legislature are subject to the judicial review by the Constitutional Courts in India.
ii. The present stage is only where Show Cause Notices have been issued by the Committee of Legislative Privileges seeking explanation from the Writ Petitioners.
40. As indicated in Facebook‟s case (referred supra), the Show Cause Notices for breach of Legislative Privilege must pass the muster at various stages. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has expressed a hope that the Committee would first consider the explanation and may recommend to the State Legislative Assembly to drop the Proceeding. Even, at this stage, if the Committee decides to recommend to the House against the Citizens, like the Writ Petitioners herein, the House is still required to arrive at an independent decision after considering the material and the explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioners, in the light of various Judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. The House would also require to apply the two-fold test enunciated in Para No.95 in the case of Sita Soren (referred supra).
41. In the light of the discussion hereinabove and the consideration of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the decisions of the State Legislatures under Article 194 of the Constitution of India touching upon the rights of the third parties/citizens are amenable to Judicial Review by the Constitutional Courts, for the Constitution of India is the bulwark for the common man against any arbitrary or illegal action by any of the organs of the State. As stated in the Facebook‟s case (referred supra) 20 that the Privilege Motion would pass through various stages, this Court is of the view that the Privilege Committee as well as the Legislature would certainly keep in mind the twin tests laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sita Soren‟s case (referred supra). The tests laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court are as under:
i) The Privilege claimed has to be tethered to the collective functioning of the House.
ii) Necessity to initiate a Privilege Motion must bear a functional relationship in discharge of essential duties of a Legislator.
42. While the Privileges of the Legislature are governed by the Constitutional Principles as enshrined in the Constitution of India, the decisions of the Legislature under the Privilege Motion shall also conform to the „Rule of Law‟, in very much the same manner as it applies to the common man. At this stage, this Court is reminded of the observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sita Soren‟s case (referred supra) that the Houses of Parliament or the Legislatures and the Committees are not islands which act as enclaves shielding those inside from the application of ordinary laws. The lawmakers are subject to the same law that the law-making body enacts for the people it governs and claims to represent. These principles would apply with full force to every legislature/law making body notwithstanding the bull- strength emanating out of the supreme-majority enjoyed by them inasmuch as the final decision under the Privilege Motion would be subject to Judicial Review. In terms of the settled law, this Court reposes absolute confidence in the wisdom of the Privileges Committee as well as the House in arriving at the right decision by keeping in mind the settled law and the salutary constitutional principles, as discussed hereinabove. It is the settled law that during the process of Judicial Review, the burden lies with the person or body claiming the privilege namely the House to satisfy the Court that a privilege exists and that it is necessary for the House to collectively discharge its functions (Sita Soren‟s case, referred supra).
2143. This Court is in agreement with the submission made by the learned Advocate General that the pendency of the matter before the Hon‟ble Apex Court with regard to the issue concerning the interplay between Article 194 and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India in N. Ravi‟s case (referred supra), cannot be a ground to defer either by this Court or the Privileges Committee in proceeding with the matter.
44. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that these two Writ Petitions are devoid of any merit inasmuch as they are premature. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No Order as to Costs.
45. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:04.11.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o : JKS 22 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NOs.14697 & 14801 of 2025 Dt:04.11.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o : JKS