Read Time: 12 minutes
Supreme Court by its judgment delivered today disposed of the plea moved by Election Commission against Oral remarks made by the Madras High Court.
A bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee, in the hearing dated April 26th had orally remarked that Election Commission was “Singularly responsible for the second wave of COVID 19” and “should be put up for murder charges”.
While observing that no substance lies in the prayer of the Election Commission for restraining media from reporting Court proceedings, A Division Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah, emphasized the need for Judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. The Bench said,
“Language is an important instrument of a judicial process which is sensitive to constitutional values. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos. Bereft of its understated balance, language risks losing its symbolism as a protector of human dignity. The power of judicial review is entrusted to the High Courts under the Constitution. So high is its pedestal that it constitutes a part of the basic features of the Constitution. Yet responsibility bears a direct co-relationship with the nature and dimensions of the entrustment of power. A degree of caution and circumspection by the High Court would have allayed a grievance of the nature that has been urged in the present case. All that needs to be clarified is that the oral observations during the course of the hearing have passed with the moment and do not constitute a part of the record.” ~ Supreme Court
Authored by Justice Chandrachud, the Judgment delves into the aspects of Open Courts and Indian Judiciary, Freedom of Expression of Media, Public Discourse, Media Reporting and Judicial Accountability and Freedom and Constraints of Judicial Conduct.
On Open Courts and Indian Judiciary
Cases Relied: Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar, (2010) 4 SCC 653, R v. Socialist Workers Printers, (1974) 3 WLR 801, Naresh Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1966) 3 SCR 744, Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639.
On Freedom of Expression of Media
Constitution allows media the freedom to inform, to distill and convey information and to express ideas and opinions on all matters of interest. Freedom of speech and expression extends to reporting the judicial proceedings as well. Ability of citizens to check arbitrary use of power by the Courts bear a direct relation to availability of information on In Court proceedings; therein lies the importance of freedom of media to write and comment. Reference is drawn to Madrid Principles on relationship between the Media and Judicial Independence. Internet and social media have revolutionized the means through which information is relayed…It would do us no good to prevent the new forms of media from reporting on our work.
Cases Relied: Express Newspapers v. Union of India, 1959 SCR 12, LIC v. Manubhai Shah, (1992) 3 SCC 637
On Public Disclosure, Media Reporting and Judicial Accountability
An open court and transparent dispensation of justice in all its modalities, is an end in itself. Reference is made to the observation of Lord Diplock in Attorney General v. Leveller Magazine. Widespread reportage of Lokmanya Tilak’s trial for sedition was seminal in highlighting the variance in procedural laws and rights denied to Indian Undertrials. Reporting through social media platforms is an extension of Free Speech;“This phenomenon is a not a cause of apprehension, but a celebration of our constitutional ethos which bolsters the integrity of the judiciary by focusing attention on its functions.” Several courts across the world, including the US Supreme Court, UK Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal of the UK and the International Criminal Court enable public viewership of proceedings through live-streaming or other suitable open access methodology.
On Freedom and Constraints of Judicial Conduct
Issues raised or comments made by the Bench during an oral hearing provide clarity not just to the judges, but also allow the lawyers to develop their arguments. Many a times, judges play the role of a devil’s advocate with the counsel to solicit responses which aid in a holistic understanding of the case and test the strength of the arguments advanced before them. Observations during the course of a hearing do not constitute a judgment or binding decision. They are at best tentative points of view, on which rival perspectives of parties in conflict enable the judge to decide on an ultimate outcome. An exchange of views from the Bench is intrinsic to a process of open and transparent judging. Reference is made to Lord Denning’s observation in Sirros v. Moore. Court must strike a balance between reproaching the High Courts or lower courts unnecessarily, so as to not hamper their independent functioning. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Courts across the country have shown commendable foresight in managing the public health crisis which threatens to submerge humanity. Their anguish when they come face to face with reality must be understood in that sense. The remarks of the High Court were harsh. The metaphor inappropriate. The High Court, if indeed it did make the oral observations which have been alluded to, did not seek to attribute culpability for the COVID-19 pandemic in the country to the EC. What instead it would have intended to do was to urge the EC to ensure stricter compliance of COVID-19 related protocols during elections.
Cases Relied: Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar, (1964) 2 SCR 336, AM Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, (1990) 2 SCC 533
The bench also pointed out on the implementation of the dictum laid down in Swapnil Tripathi v. SCI;
“Unless live-streaming and archival of court proceedings sees the light of the day (three years have elapsed since the decision in Swapnil Tripathi) the absence of records of oral proceedings would continue to bedevil the system.”
Case Title: Chief Election Commissioner of India v. MR Vijayabhaskar | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1767 of 2021.
Please Login or Register
