01 Read
What happened
Journalist Ajit Anjum has filed an intervention application before the Supreme Court in a pending case concerning the scope and interpretation of legislative privileges under the Indian Constitution. The case examines how far parliamentary privilege extends — particularly whether it shields legislators from judicial scrutiny for actions taken inside the legislature. The intervention signals broader public interest in resolving the tension between parliamentary immunity and constitutional rights of citizens and press freedom.
02 Understand
Why it matters
Legislative privileges are special rights, immunities, and powers enjoyed by Parliament and state legislatures, and their members, to ensure they can function independently without external interference. Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution govern these privileges for Parliament and state legislatures respectively.
The core tension the Supreme Court is being asked to resolve is this: how absolute is parliamentary privilege? Earlier, in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998), a majority held that legislators cannot be prosecuted for bribery related to votes cast inside the House — an expansive reading of privilege. The court in Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) overruled this, holding that privilege does not extend to bribery, because the corrupt act precedes the parliamentary act.
The pending case likely concerns where the outer boundary of privilege lies — whether courts can review legislative proceedings, whether privilege can be used to gag the press or citizens, and whether fundamental rights can be curtailed in the name of legislative immunity.
A journalist intervening is significant: it raises the question of whether privilege can be weaponised against press coverage of legislative conduct. The examiner will test whether aspirants understand the difference between privilege that protects legislative independence (legitimate) and privilege used to suppress accountability (constitutionally suspect). The distinction between Articles 105(1), 105(2), and 105(3) — and the role of codification — is a core testable area.
The core tension the Supreme Court is being asked to resolve is this: how absolute is parliamentary privilege? Earlier, in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998), a majority held that legislators cannot be prosecuted for bribery related to votes cast inside the House — an expansive reading of privilege. The court in Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) overruled this, holding that privilege does not extend to bribery, because the corrupt act precedes the parliamentary act.
The pending case likely concerns where the outer boundary of privilege lies — whether courts can review legislative proceedings, whether privilege can be used to gag the press or citizens, and whether fundamental rights can be curtailed in the name of legislative immunity.
A journalist intervening is significant: it raises the question of whether privilege can be weaponised against press coverage of legislative conduct. The examiner will test whether aspirants understand the difference between privilege that protects legislative independence (legitimate) and privilege used to suppress accountability (constitutionally suspect). The distinction between Articles 105(1), 105(2), and 105(3) — and the role of codification — is a core testable area.
Remember + Why it matters
The key recall facts and exact examiner angle for CLAT PG are in the Crux app.
01
Key figure and date from this topic
02
Specific number or threshold to remember
03
Policy or regulatory implication
Read + Understand free forever · 30-day free trial