The bench presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant noted that the 2003 resolution of the Tamil Nadu Assembly, which formed the basis of the reference, was withdrawn by the Assembly in 2004.WITH THE 2003 Tamil Nadu case that triggered a reference to its seven-judge bench on the question of legislative privileges vis-a-vis free speech having been withdrawn, the Supreme Court on Tuesday closed proceedings in the matter, while leaving the question of law open to be decided on a future occasion.The bench presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant noted that the 2003 resolution of the Tamil Nadu Assembly, which formed the basis of the reference, was withdrawn by the Assembly in 2004.The bench, also comprising Justices Aravind Kumar, P K Mishra, Joymalya Bagchi, Vipul Pancholi, Shree Chandrashekhar and V Mohana, said that the July 30, 2004 Assembly resolution withdrawing the earlier resolution of November 7, 2003 “was not specifically brought to the notice of this Court”. “It also escaped notice” when it made the reference to the seven-judge bench.Disposing of the matter as having become infructuous, the bench, however, said that the questions of law would remain open to be decided in appropriate proceedings in the future.The sequence of events dates back to a 2003 article in the The Hindu newspaper, criticising the then CM J Jayalalithaa and her government.Taking offence, the Assembly concluded that it amounted to a breach of privilege of the House. Soon after the November 7, 2003, resolution, police arrested The Hindu Editor N Ravi, Executive Editor Malini Parthasarathy, Bureau Chief V Jayant, Special Correspondent Radha Venkatesan and Publisher S Rangarajan.The journalists challenged this before the Supreme Court, which stayed the arrest on November 10, 2003.Story continues below this adBut with the matter raising significant constitutional questions of the privilege of the House vis-a-vis right to free speech, the top court in December 2003 referred it to a five-judge bench. The five-judge bench in turn referred it to a seven-judge bench, noting that there were conflicting views on the issue.