M S M Sharma v Sri Krishna Sinha
Rule established
The privileges conferred by Article 194(3), and correspondingly by Article 105(3), are themselves provisions of the Constitution and prevail over the fundamental right in Article 19(1)(a). They do not, however, prevail over Article 21.
Facts
- A member made a speech in the Bihar Legislative Assembly, parts of which the Speaker ordered to be expunged from the proceedings.
- The petitioner was the editor of a newspaper published in Patna.
- His newspaper published a report of the speech including the expunged portions.
- The Committee on Privileges of the Assembly issued a notice calling upon him to show cause why action should not be taken against him for breach of privilege.
- He petitioned the Supreme Court under Art.32, contending that the proposed action violated his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Art.19(1)(a), and his rights under Art.21.
Issue
- Whether the privilege of a House to prohibit publication of its proceedings prevails over the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, and whether it prevails over the right to life and personal liberty.
Held
- By a majority of four to one, the privilege prevailed and the petition failed. The privileges available under Art.194(3), pending their definition by legislation, are those of the House of Commons as they then stood, and included the right to prohibit publication of debates and proceedings and to punish a breach as contempt. Since those privileges are conferred by a provision of the Constitution itself, they stand on an equal footing with Part III and are not controlled by Art.19(1)(a). The Court took a different view of Art.21, indicating that privilege must yield to it, so that a person cannot be deprived of personal liberty otherwise than according to procedure established by law. Subba Rao J dissented, taking the view that the fundamental rights should prevail.
Ratio Decidendi
Where two provisions of the same Constitution appear to conflict, neither can simply override the other, and the court must harmonise them. Article 194(3) confers privileges in express terms and is not made subject to Part III, whereas the general right in Art.19(1)(a) is expressed in terms permitting restriction. Reading the privilege as subordinate to Art.19(1)(a) would render it nugatory, since almost every exercise of privilege against publication would then fail. Article 21 stands differently, being a guarantee of the mode by which liberty may be taken away at all rather than a right capable of being restricted in the same manner.
How to use it in an exam
- The foundational Indian case on the relationship between privilege and fundamental rights. Learn the resulting formula precisely: privilege prevails over Art.19(1)(a) but yields to Art.21.
- Known as the Searchlight case, after the newspaper concerned.
- Use it for the collective privilege of the House to prohibit publication of its proceedings and to punish contempt.
- Note the limit supplied by Art.361A, inserted by the 44th Amendment, which now protects substantially true reports of proceedings published without malice. Expunged matter, having ceased to form part of the proceedings, is outside that protection.
- Read with Special Reference No 1 of 1964, which applied the Art.21 qualification by holding that a person committed for contempt may move the High Court under Art.226, and with Raja Ram Pal v Speaker Lok Sabha 2007 on the grounds of review.
- Mention Subba Rao J's dissent, since a good answer notes that the primacy given to privilege has been criticised as inconsistent with the general scheme of Part III.
Source
Source: AIR 1959 SC 395; (1959) Supp (1) SCR 806; known as the Searchlight case; Constitution Bench of five Judges, Subba Rao J dissenting; foundational authority on privilege against fundamental rights; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.