Chief Election Commissioner of India vs M.R Vijayabhaskar and Others

Decided on: 06^th May, 2021

Bench: Dr. D.Y Chandrachud and M.R Shaw, JJ

Facts

On 26^th February 2021, the Election Commission of India (ECI) announced General Elections to the Legislative Assemblies of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Assam, and Puducherry. Accordingly, the elections in the State of Tamil Nadu were scheduled such that the polling would be held on 06^th April 2021 and the counting of the votes subsequently on 02^nd May 2021. [1] During the preparations, the ECI issued a letter on 12^th March to all the Presidents and General Secretaries stressing the importance of adhering strictly to the COVID-19 protocols. Upon learning of the breach of the COVID-19 protocol, the ECI issued a letter on 09th April during the polling phase to political parties to follow the protocols on “social distancing, wearing masks, and other such measures to prevent the spread of the virus.” It also noted that “if the breach of norms continued, the ECI would consider banning public meetings and rallies.” On 16^th April 2021, through an order, the ECI banned rallies, public meetings, and street plays during the campaign days between 7 P.M. and 10 A.M. A letter was issued that day, reiterating the need for stringent adherence to COVID-19 safety protocols.

With the surge in COVID-19 cases, the District Secretary of the AIADMK of the 135-Karur Legislative Assembly sent a representation on 16^th April to the ECI “to take further precautions and measures for the safety of the officers in the counting booth.” Upon hearing no response from the ECI, the District Secretary filed a writ before the High Court of Madras seeking directions in order to ensure fair counting of votes at their constituency while taking effective steps to prevent the spread of the coronavirus on 02^nd May 2021.[2]

The petition was reviewed by a Division Bench of the High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, on April 26, 2021.The High Court ordered, stating that the Election Commission failed to ensure adherence to COVID protocols during campaigns and rallies despite repeated court orders. Measures for the vote counting on 02^nd May 2021 should be planned to prevent further COVID-19 spread, as public health is of paramount importance. 

At the time of the hearing, it is alleged that the High Court made an oral observation regarding the ECI as “the institution that is singularly responsible for the second wave of COVID-19” and that the ECI “should be put up for murder charges.” Though not part of the High Court’s order, these remarks were reported in print, electronic, and broadcast media.[3]

The ECI further went on to file a counter-affidavit before the Madras High Court, describing “the orders issued and the steps taken for the management of poll processes in view of the pandemic.” The ECI further filed a miscellaneous application praying for the court to pass an “interim direction that only what forms part of the record of court should be reported by electronic media.” The Madras High Court heard the matter again on 30^th April 2021. It disposed of the petition in response to the measures taken by the ECI to observe COVID-19 protocols on 02^nd May 2021, especially in the 135-Karur Constituency. The miscellaneous application was closed as well.[5]

Thus, the ECI approached the Supreme Court of India through a special leave petition to hear their plea.

Issues Raised

1. Whether it is in the authority of a judge to conduct judicial proceedings as well as engage in dialogue during a hearing, and if that is in the freedom of the media to report judgments and judicial proceedings? What concerns must courts be aware of in an age defined by “the seamless flow of information?” What purpose does the media serve in a courtroom? [6]
2. Whether the Election Commission of India, as a constitutional body, can argue that its constitutional status grants it immunity from judicial oversight?

Contentions

Appellant: The counsel from the the ECI urged for the following

1. The High Court should not have made such “disparaging statements” on the ECI since such observations “have no relevance to the matter at court on providing safe counting measures for the officers”; the ECI was not given an opportunity to explain their end of the steps they took to observe COVID-19 safety protocol; the ECI was not made aware that its conduct of protocol maintenance would be a part this hearing; these observations were made without any proof; and the court disposed the ECI’s miscellaneous writ without addressing it. 
2. The High Court’s observations were reported on multiple media platforms, tarnishing the ECI’s image as an independent constitutional body and undermining the sanctity of its constitutional authority. This has led to the peoples’ faith in the ECI.
3. During the pandemic, the ECI conducted various state elections and implemented COVID-19 protocols. However, the “actual enforcement” of these protocols is the “responsibility of the state government.” The ECI “does not control state governance during elections and has a limited number of personnel.” The court’s ability to review the Election Commission’s actions during elections is limited, and it should be careful when commenting on the ECI or the election process.[7]
4. The High Court’s oral remarks, “not part of the official record,” have unfairly prejudiced the ECI. The media must report court proceedings accurately without sensationalizing them, as this undermines public confidence, and guidelines should be established for reporting. “A balance must be maintained between court proceedings and media freedom,” as quoting judges’ oral comments can create a misleading impression of an official opinion beyond judicial propriety.[8]

Respondents: The counsel on behalf of the District Secretary of the AIADMK stressed the following:

1. The media’s reporting of court decisions fully exercises freedom of speech and expression. Keeping oral proceedings away from public awareness creates confusion between constitutional institutions and the public. This will violate the right to information as there would be no transparency in the procedure. [9]
2. Since the ECI is the sole agency regulating elections, it bears full responsibility for any consequences to the public during elections. The ECI holds extensive powers during elections, including deploying paramilitary forces and replacing key officials to ensure compliance with its directives. Hence, the ECI was accountable for implementing COVID-19 safety measures during the elections.
3. The statements were made in the public interest and did not include any unsubstantiated or biased comments.

Rationale

Addressing the matter, the Supreme Court coram of Dr. D.Y Chandrachud and M.R Shaw J.J looked into the contentions made by the ECI. This request challenges two fundamental constitutional principles: ‘open court proceedings’ and the ‘fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.’

1. Open Court Proceedings

Open courts are fundamental to our judicial system, ensuring both “physical and metaphorical openness.” Except for “in-camera proceedings in exceptional cases like those involving sensitive matters such as child sexual abuse or matrimonial privacy,” our legal framework upholds the principle that court proceedings should be accessible to the public.[10]

Citizens have a right to be informed of courtroom discussions and arguments, which are essential for testing legal arguments and ensuring transparency in our democratic process. Public scrutiny through open courts increases confidence in judicial conduct, allows for public evaluation, and also plays an educational role by demonstrating how laws are applied in practice. While there are exceptions for privacy and fair trial concerns, maintaining public access to court proceedings remains crucial for democratic governance. 

2. Freedom of Expression for Media

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees “citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression.” This implicitly covers the freedom of the press, as established in the case Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1958. This right includes the freedom to report judicial proceedings, giving the public access to information about “the activities of the judiciary and executive,” as highlighted in the case of LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah. [11]

Therefore, “freedom of speech and expression also extends to reporting the proceedings of judicial institutions.” The courts bear the responsibility of protecting the law and, thereby, the people of the nation; hence, its functioning directly impacts the citizens. This also means that citizens possess the right to ensure and keep a check that the courts work according to their true spirits and power, which is only possible through the seamless availability of information on court proceedings. 

Information transfer has become smooth and rapid in a fast-paced world with evolving technology. The court also recognized the need to adapt to technological advancements, as noted in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, which advocated live-streaming of judicial proceedings to enhance transparency and public engagement. Thus, the ‘right to freedom of speech and expression,’ including ‘press freedom,’ plays a crucial role in maintaining transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the judiciary.[12]

3. Freedom and Constraints of Judicial Conduct

The judiciary’s independence from the executive and legislature is essential. This means that judges must be impartial and free from bias, conducting court proceedings according to natural justice principles while adhering to their constitutional oath. Judges must be accountable to the people. 

Judges often act as devil’s advocates to test arguments and reach a fair decision, reflecting diverse judicial backgrounds and enriching jurisprudence. Judicial comments during hearings are not judgments but part of an open, transparent process. Judges must be “protected from liability when acting judicially,” as emphasized by Lord Denning in the case Sirros v. Moore. However, the judiciary must exercise restraint and avoid harsh criticism, as expressed in A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta. Balancing judicial freedom and restraint is vital, and higher courts must support lower courts while correcting errors appropriately. [13]

Defects Of Law

1. Freedom of speech and expression for media

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees citizens “the right to freedom of speech and expression.” The Constitution Bench in Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1958, recognized that “this freedom inherently includes the right to freedom of the press.” The Court noted that a free press is essential for disseminating information and ideas, ensuring that the public remains informed and engaged in democratic processes. This case emphasized that freedom of the press means freedom from both governmental and social compulsions, allowing the press to operate independently and effectively. [14]

2. Reporting judicial proceedings

The media’s freedom to report on judicial proceedings is fundamental for ensuring transparency and accountability in the judiciary. The public is entitled to access information about court activities, as the judiciary’s decisions directly impact their rights and freedoms. This transparency is necessary for maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

3. Accountability of the judiciary through open courts

In Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar, 2010, the Supreme Court emphasized “the importance of open court proceedings for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.” The principle of open courts ensures that “the judicial process is subject to public scrutiny,” promoting “transparency and accountability.” This scrutiny acts as a check on judicial behaviour and ensures that justice is administered fairly. [15]

Inference

In the case of the observations of the Madras High Court, the bench held that the court had no opportunity to respond. Still, since the ECI, a constitutional authority, has adverted these observations made by the high court and not disputed by the respondents despite the widespread publicity of these observations, the bench decided not to acquire a confirmatory report from the High Court’s Registrar General. [16]

The observations made by the Madras High Court during the COVID-19 crisis highlight the importance of caution in judicial language, ensuring it aligns with constitutional values. Ultimately, the judiciary’s role in maintaining democratic integrity and accountability is vital.

Therefore, the Honourable Bench of the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal.

This case, thus, highlights the importance of media in reporting judicial proceedings to keep a check on the court’s powers and ensure its faith remains instilled in the eyes of the nation’s citizens.