CASE COMMENT:
FACTS:
In this case, a special leave petition has been brought in the Supreme Court of India.
This petition was filed in response to a decree issued by the division of bench of the Madras High Court. That case had been initiated by an AIADMK candidate to investigate the covid 19 guidelines and ECI’s execution of them. After receiving no answer from ECI and failing to follow the requirements, the very same applicant filed a second complaint using Article 226[1] in the High Court. The issue at stake was the election commission of India’s reckless and imprudent management of crowds during elections. These were parliamentary assembly elections and violations of COVID 19 Guidelines in the Tamil Nadu constituency. The HC is accused of making disparaging statements about ECI and holding it entirely responsible for the deaths that were that occurred due to COVID 19 following the elections. ECI also accused HC of making uncorroborated claims and calling itself a murderer and the one and only responsible authority for the deaths of COVID 19. These were largely verbal pronouncements by the responsible HC and they were not captured by the media, which is expected to catch only written judgments as part of the press. In response, ECI filed a special leave petition since it was unsatisfied with the HC’s string of tarnishing statements and the media’s inclusion of oral prejudiced utterances by the HC, which has ruined the renowned reputation of the independent constitutional body, i.e. ECI.[2]
ISSUES RAISED:
1. Is documenting oral remarks by members of the press at a hearing is an acceptable standard of conduct?
2. Moderation on the part of the judiciary. If so, is it essential in some circumstances? In this case, the Election Commission of India (ECI) was unimpressed with the judgments given by the courts against it, which damaged its public image.
CONTENTIONS:
Arguments on the petitioner’s side –
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has petitioned the Supreme Court for a special leave. It made the following arguments to prove its point: As in this case, media coverage of oral utterances made during court hearings might have a harmful impact on public discourse. It further claimed that the High Court, as the country’s independent wing, should not issue such defamatory comments about an independent constitutional authority, namely the ECI, because it fosters public prejudice against the body. Elections may or may not be subject to judicial scrutiny. Additionally, ECI claimed that its HC miscellaneous application had not been fairly examined and required reconsideration by the Supreme Court of India[3]. The behavior of legal precedents and the independence and behavior of the media inside were both attempted to be in harmony. Despite the fact that the court’s opinions are always represented in its rulings, mainstream media continues to report on judges’ oral rulings in public, which amounts to nothing more than an institution’s opinion and falls outside the bounds of judicial decorum.
Arguments in favor of the respondent –
A candidate for the AIADMK, M.R. Vijaybhaskara, and the HC of Madras made up the respondent’s part in this precedent. They developed the following counterarguments on their behavior:
They argued that the media had exercised its right to free speech and expression by covering the entirety of the court’s verdict. Additionally, they claim that keeping the oral procedures secret from the public would create a barrier between the general people and the constitutional safeguarding bodies. They argued that because the processes were not transparent, their right to information might have been breached. Additionally, ECI is the only body in charge of regulating how elections are conducted, making it completely responsible for all the consequences that voters must deal with throughout the polls. Additionally, they claimed that the claims were unfounded and prejudicial because the statements were made in the public interest[4].
JUDGMENT:
The Supreme Court noted that as oral comments spoken during any judicial hearing are never included in the order or judgment, the removal issue is not relevant. The court did concur that the justices from the high court in Madras had made harsh remarks. It said that judges should exercise restraint when making such “off the cuff remark” comments in public courts and that the language they employ while making oral observations or passing decisions should be appropriate for judges.
The Supreme Court denied the election commission’s request to forbid the media from publishing any oral statements made by judges because it violates basic rights protected by the Indian Constitution. The judges further noted that in order to comply with the idea of open court, information pertaining to legal processes in a court should be made public and therefore accessible to the general public.
The court also used the sedition case of Lokmanya Tilak as an example of how print media covered trials and court processes during the British Raj. The judges suggested that instead of complaining, the Constitutional Authorities should accept the new situation. The High Courts received accolades from the court for their excellent work throughout the COVID situation[5].
REASONING –
The decision was made by a two-judge panel that included Justices DY Chandrachud and M.R. Shah. The Supreme Court’s honorable judges’ pronounced decision highlighted the following reasoning:
1. Concerning the impartiality of the judiciary and how it behaves during proceedings – Yes, the SC made judges aware of the importance of using some restraint and responsibility when making statements in front of the court. This is so because one of the most important institutions responsible for safeguarding the constitutional ethos is the court, and any misrepresentation could result in incorrect interpretation and the loss of judicial propriety. So, to a certain extent, judicial constraint was supported. However, the argument to eliminate oral procedures was rejected since these are statements made at the time and do not necessarily reflect the main conclusion or something the general public is interested in.
2. Oral evidence is not included in the official record of a court case.
The reality that their removal matter is moot in and of itself is established by the fact that oral declarations made in a public hearing are not included in any decision or judicial record. Additionally, the SC rejected the ECI’s claim that media reports in the public’s discourse should not include oral records since doing so would be a clear breach of India’s fundamental principles. Every process taking place in open court automatically requires the publication for each remark to be made public and accessible to the public.
3. Media expression and freedom of speech
Additionally, it was emphasized that this is an unbridgeable aspect of the press’s right to freedom of expression. The Indian Constitution’s article 19(1) (a) indirectly lays it forth.
According to the principles of free speech and expression, reporting about the practices of judicial institutions is likewise permitted. Courts are required by law to carry out important duties. Their actions have a direct impact on people’ rights as well as how effectively they can hold the government responsible for obeying the law. Guaranteeing that courts fulfill their duty to function as a check on arbitrary actions of power is a right of citizens. People’s capacity to do so is frequently influenced by how easily information about what occurs in a court during proceedings is made available to the public.
4. Striking a balance between independence and judicial conduct
Each judge must be allowed to express his or her viewpoint on the evidence that is being presented before him. The language a judge uses will rely on their propensity for dishonesty, their proficiency with English, and their capacity for self-explanation. Nothing is more harmful to a judge’s capacity to do his duties as a judge than persuading him to adhere to a particular pattern that the appellate court may or may not find acceptable. Sometimes he might go too far. When competing public interests arise, the bigger one should take precedence. It could be important to put up with an unfair insult to a witness in the bigger picture of protecting the case’s integrity. At one end of the spectrum, there is a duty to protect the independence of the judiciary and let judges to openly express themselves in court. The other end of the spectrum, which is as important, is that judicial restraint must be maintained and the authority of judges must be held in control before using strong language and caustic condemnation of any people or organization[6].
FAULTS IN THE LAW:
During the delivery of the decision in this case, the supreme court emphasized a number of fundamental rights and clauses. Throughout this procedure, several flaws that violated the law were found. Therefore, some laws that have been contested in the aforementioned case are those under Article 19(a)[7], which includes press freedom, Article 324,[8] which deals with elections, and Article 21[9].
Additionally, there were discussions about press freedom, article 324’s powers and use of judicial review, and judicial constraint that was not balanced with independence. These were emphasized by identifying the numerous precedent upon which this particular instance was based in the following ways:
i. Express Newspaper Limited v. Union of India[10] – This case was referenced by the SC to support its claim for press freedom to cover every judicial hearing. In this instance, two types of press freedom—freedom from and freedom for—were distinguished. Freedom for involves the right to express one’s views and engage in informed conversations, whereas freedom from indicates freedom from external restrictions and compulsions. As a result, this court stated in the Vijaybhaskara judgment that media freedom is the new reality that must be recognized by everyone since it promotes a democratic system of government in the public sphere.
ii. Pramod Kumar Gupta vs. AM Mathur[11] – This case was used by the SC to highlight the need for some degree of judicial restraint while simultaneously balancing the autonomy of the constitutional authority. It is completely improper for a judge to treat any witness who appears before the court with contempt or harsh words.
iii. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar against the State of Maharashtra[12] – This was discussed in order to draw attention to the importance of open tribunals in a democracy.
iii. Swapnil Tripathi v. Indian Supreme Court[13] – The three-judge panel in this case placed a strong focus on live broadcasting of the court’s proceedings, suggesting that no material should be censored from the public debate. With this in mind, the SC concurred with the media reporting in the current instance and declared it to be legal.
iv. State of Bihar v. Kashi Nath Roy[14] – In the Vijaybhaskara case, the Supreme Court mentioned this case in reference to the removal of erroneous statements made by judges during oral arguments. A two-judge panel ruled in this case that juries cannot be coerced to operate like robots or have every word and deed controlled. Even while harsh language may be restricted and controlled to some level, justice is still administered by a human and may make mistakes. This does not imply that their comments should be used as justification to have them removed from the record and sued. The same justification was used to address the flaw in ECI’s argument.
INFERENCE:
The EC addressed the Supreme Court in this case to request remedy against the claimed verbal remarks made by the Madras High Court, another constitutional body.
There is no evidence that the Supreme Court has given the EC any of the requested reliefs. This decision ensures that the media can cover legal proceedings. Media coverage of judicial proceedings is a requirement for a democracy that is secure. The court appears to have ignored its arguments in favor of upholding the nation’s democratic fabric rather than the reputation of any particular constitutional authority. Any principles contained in the constitution, particularly those that form the fundamental framework of the Indian constitution, cannot be disregarded when deciding cases of libel or other torts. The SC also noted that because these oral utterances are not included in the formal record of the proceedings, the issue of their eradication is immaterial. The adage that a judicial institution’s authentic viewpoint is revealed in its judgements and orders rather than in its spoken remarks made throughout the hearing is cliched. As a result, it is clear that the Madras High Court is attempting to strike a compromise among the demands of the two constitutional authorities.
CONCLUSION:
As the rulings of the Supreme Court wisely noted, a general public court assures that justices follow the law. According to the highest court, press coverage of court proceedings is considered a part of press freedom and as such, is covered by the basic right to the freedom of expression and speech. These tasks have historically been carried out by the election commission, and they should be continued.
Name: Ritika Singh
University: MIT WPU
[1] INDIA CONST. art. 226
[2] The Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs. M.R Vijaya Bhaskar, https://lawessential.com/case-comments-1/f/the-chief-election-commissioner-of-india-vs-mr-vijaya-bhaskar?blogcategory=Case+Comments, (Last Visited Sept. 19, 2023)
[3] Case Study: The Chief Election Commissioner of India vs Mr. Vijayabhaskar & ors, https://letsgetlegal.in/case-study-chief-election-commissioner-of-india-vs-mr-vijaya-bhaskar-ors/, (Last Visited Sept. 19, 2023)
[4] Case Study: The Chief Election Commissioner of India vs Mr. Vijayabhaskar & ors, https://letsgetlegal.in/case-study-chief-election-commissioner-of-india-vs-mr-vijaya-bhaskar-ors/, (Last Visited Sept. 19, 2023)
[5] Chief Election Commissioner of India v. Mr. Vijay Bhaska, 6 May 2021, https://legalvidhiya.com/chief-election-commissioner-of-india-v-mr-vijay-bhaska-6-may-2021/, (Last Visited Sept. 19, 2023)
[6] The Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs. M.R Vijaya Bhaskar, https://lawessential.com/case-comments-1/f/the-chief-election-commissioner-of-india-vs-mr-vijaya-bhaskar?blogcategory=Case+Comments, (Last Visited Sept. 19, 2023)
[7] INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. a.
[8] INDIA CONST. art. 324
[9] INDIA CONST. art. 21
[10] Express Newspaper Limited v. UOI, (1985) 2 SCR 287
[11] Pramod Kumar Gupta v. AM Mathur, (1990) 2 SCC 533
[12] Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 SCR (3) 744
[13] Swapnil Tripathi v. Indian Supreme Court, (2018) 10 SCC 639
[14] State of Bihar v. Kashi Nath Roy, 1996 SCC (4) 539
Me hace llorar esta entrada. Me inspira esta anécdota. Me entristece tu trabajo.