Examine how judicial review of legislative privileges has evolved in India, from *Searchlight* to the present seven-judge reference.

Articles 105(3) and 194(3) say legislative privileges are to be "defined by law", but no such law exists. Privileges still follow House of Commons practice as it stood before the 44th Amendment (1978) [1]. In this uncodified space, the Supreme Court has moved steadily from deference to scrutiny.

Phase I: Privilege over free speech (1959)

• In M.S.M. Sharma (Searchlight), a Constitution Bench held that Art. 105(3)/194(3) privileges prevail over Article 19(1)(a) [1].
• Justice Subba Rao dissented. He called the Commons link a temporary arrangement, and later review built on his view [1].

Phase II: Courts, not Houses, decide what privilege is (1965–1977)

• Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (Keshav Singh), seven judges: the House is not the sole judge of its privileges. Courts decide the content of Art. 194(3), and Article 21 prevails over it [1].
• State of Karnataka v. UoI (1977): when a House claims jurisdiction under privilege, only courts can rule on that claim [1].

Phase III: Review of how privilege is used (2007–2014)

• Raja Ram Pal (2007): courts may examine whether an asserted privilege actually exists under the Constitution [1].
• Amarinder Singh (2010): the test is whether using the privilege was necessary to safeguard legislative functions against obstruction by members or non-members [1].
• Lokayukta, Justice Ripusudan Dayal (2014): privileges exist only insofar as the House needs them to function freely [1].

Phase IV: The functional-necessity test (2024)

• Sita Soren (seven judges) overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao: bribery is not protected. A privilege must be tied to the House's collective functioning and be necessary for it [1].

The pending seven-judge reference

• It began in 2003, when the Tamil Nadu Assembly resolved to arrest The Hindu's editors over an editorial. The Supreme Court stayed any coercive action [3]. N. Ravi v. Speaker has been pending since then [1].
• Journalists and comedian Kunal Kamra now seek to intervene. The hearing is listed for 6 October 2026 [3].
• Core question: when a House uses privilege against outsiders, must it meet the Art. 19(2) limits? Searchlight's rule that privilege prevails sits uneasily with the necessity test.
• Codification remains stalled. The Lok Sabha Privileges Committee (2008) saw no need for it. By contrast, Australia's 1987 Act says words are not an offence merely because they are "critical of Parliament" [2].

Searchlight(1959) → Keshav Singh(1965) → Raja Ram Pal(2007) → Sita Soren(2024) → N. Ravi(2026)
 privilege>19(1)(a)   courts decide       review of use        necessity test     privilege vs press

Fig: From deference to functional scrutiny

Across these phases, privilege has changed from an unquestionable power into a court-supervised power justified by function. The Bench can apply the necessity test to rule that criticism is not obstruction. Legislatures should also pass an Australia-style privileges law under Art. 194(3). Together, these steps would protect both a free legislature and a free press, as constitutional democracy requires.