Facts
- In this case, a special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India following a Madras High Court’s division bench decree.
- The AIADMK candidate initially filed a case to review ECI’s implementation of COVID-19 protocols during the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly elections.
- After ECI failed to respond, the candidate filed another petition under Article 226, citing ECI’s negligent handling of election crowds.
- The High Court allegedly made harsh remarks, holding ECI solely accountable for COVID-19 deaths post-elections.
- The media reported these oral comments, not part of the official written judgement, damaging ECI’s reputation.
- Aggrieved by these statements, ECI filed the special leave petition, arguing the High Court’s remarks and media coverage tarnished its image as an independent constitutional body.
Issues Raised
Is the practice of media recording oral statements made in court proceedings a lawful and constitutional one?
Important Provision
Article 19 (1)(A)- Guarantees Freedom of Speech & Expression
Contention
Petitioner:
- The counsel argued that the high court judges’ remarks lacked evidence and documentation, and the election commission wasn’t given a chance to defend itself.
- These statements, widely covered by the media, harmed the commission’s reputation.
- He contended that election-related judicial processes are limited and the State is responsible for enforcing protocols.
- He also claimed that research would show elections didn’t significantly increase COVID-19 cases, as the commission had set and enforced regulations.
- The counsel argued that the Madras High Court’s comments unfairly prejudiced the commission. The media must report proceedings accurately to maintain public trust, necessitating clear guidelines for court reporting.
Respondent:
- The counsel challenging the submissions argued that the Electoral Commission has many powers during a state election cycle.
- The general manager of police, district magistrates, law enforcement officers, and even the ability to organize paramilitary formations are among the powers that fall under this category.
- During elections, the electoral commission was also responsible for putting safety measures and the COVID-19 communication protocol into place.
Rationale
The bench ruled that the Madras High Court’s oral remarks are not part of the official judicial record. It affirmed the media’s right to inform the public and express opinions in the public interest, including reporting on judicial proceedings, thus maintaining that the media cannot be restrained from covering court activities. This judgement balanced the rights of two constitutional bodies. The Madras High Court, a significant entity in the Indian judiciary, is tasked with protecting citizens’ fundamental rights. The Election Commission (EC) is an independent body responsible for fair elections. The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court’s efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic while recognizing the EC’s duties, citing the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner in support. Judges can express personal opinions on cases, but their word choice is crucial. Judicial independence must be preserved alongside judicial restraint. The concept of open court hearings, where the public can access information, was also discussed. However, some cases require privacy to protect individuals’ integrity.
The following reasoning was highlighted in the pronounced judgement by the honourable judges of the Supreme Court:
- Oral records are not part of the official judicial records
Oral declarations made in open court are not included in official decrees or court records, according to a ruling by the Supreme Court. As such, it makes no difference whether or not these statements should be removed. The Election Commission of India (ECI) argued that excluding oral comments from media reports would be a clear violation of India’s fundamental norms, but the Court rejected this argument. The Court stressed that the idea that all statements made should be transparent and available to the public is supported by the very nature of proceedings taking place in an open court. By keeping the public fully informed about judicial procedures, this openness helps to uphold the judiciary’s accountability and transparency. As a result, the Supreme Court maintained the media’s freedom to cover every facet of legal proceedings, underscoring the significance of an accessible and clear legal system in a democracy.
- Freedom of speech and expression of Media –
The Indian Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the press’s freedom of speech and expression, which the Supreme Court highlighted cannot be restricted. Reporting on court proceedings is a natural part of this right. Reporting on judicial proceedings is protected by the fundamental rights to free speech and expression found in democracies. Under the law, courts carry out crucial tasks that have a big impact on citizens’ rights and guarantee the responsibility of the government. People have the right to make sure that the courts carry out their mandate to restrain arbitrary power. For public supervision, information regarding judicial procedures must be easily accessible. The public’s capacity to keep an eye on and hold judicial institutions responsible is directly impacted by how simple it is for them to learn about what happens in court. Public participation in court proceedings can help guarantee that judges carry out their duties and uphold the rights of the people. Upholding democratic values and preserving public confidence in the court depend on this transparency. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the value of an accessible and transparent legal system and states that media coverage is essential for citizens to be informed and involved.
Defects of Law
The Supreme Court found multiple legal flaws and emphasised several fundamental rights and provisions in its ruling. Press freedom is covered by Article 19(a), while election management is covered by Article 324, which is under Article 13’s judicial review provisions. In this case, Article 21 and defamation laws were also examined. The court observed the disparity between judicial independence and restraint, focusing on the arguments surrounding press freedom and the judicial review authority granted by Article 324. To ensure a thorough assessment of the problems at hand, several precedents supporting this case were also reviewed. These precedents addressed the interaction between these constitutional articles and the legal concepts they embody.
The precedents are as follows:
- AM Mathur vs Pramod Kumar Gupta – By referencing this case, the SC balanced the independence of the constitutional body with the significance of judicial restraint to some extent. It is completely inappropriate for judges to treat witnesses with contempt and harsh words when they appear in court.
- Kashi Nath Roy vs State of Bihar – When discussing the expunging of judicial comments made during oral arguments, the Supreme Court referenced this case. This resulted in a two-judge bench ruling that judges cannot be forced to act like robots and have their every word and movement controlled. Though harsh language may be restricted and controlled to some level, justice is being administered by a human creature, who may make mistakes. This does not imply that their statements ought to be used as grounds for clearing them of all liability and filing a lawsuit. To address the flaw in the case made by ECI, the same logic was used.
Inference
In this instance, the Election Commission (EC) petitioned the Supreme Court to seek remedy for purported remarks made orally by the Madras High Court, another constitutional body. The Supreme Court made no indication as to whether or not the EC would receive any of the reliefs it was seeking.
Rather, the decision upheld the media’s right to cover judicial proceedings, emphasizing how important this kind of coverage is to a healthy democracy. The nation’s democratic fabric seemed to be the Court’s primary concern, rather than the standing of any particular constitutional body. It underlined those constitutional principles particularly those that constitute the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution must not be abandoned for the sake of libel or other legal issues.
Since these comments are not included in the official court record, the Supreme Court ruled that the question of their expungement was moot. The Court reaffirmed that official judgments and orders, not oral observations made during hearings, are the appropriate venues for a judicial institution’s valid viewpoints to be communicated. This contrast emphasizes how written decisions are crucial for communicating the official position of the court. Thus, the decision attempted to strike a compromise between the demands of the two constitutional authorities, leaning somewhat in favour of the Madras High Court. This ruling emphasizes how important it is to have an accessible and transparent legal system so that the press is allowed to cover court cases and preserve democratic ideals.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 epidemic significantly altered people’s lives as well as the fabric of society at large. Overseen by the Election Commission of India (EC), which is in charge of guaranteeing the secure conduct of elections, including vote counting, India held elections in several states during this time. The European Commission asserted that its mandate encompassed just the secure tabulation of votes, rather than managing the spread of COVID-19 throughout the nation. A few oral observations regarding the EC were made by the Madras High Court in the Chief Election Commissioner v. MR Vijayabhaskar case. The EC sought reparation after its reputation was harmed by remarks that were not included in the official court record but were instead reported by the media. These oral statements are not to be regarded as part of the official record, according to a ruling by the Supreme Court. It reaffirmed the press’s freedom to report on legal proceedings as well as to educate the public and voice viewpoints. As a result, it is impossible to stop the media from covering court proceedings, which emphasizes the value of openness and the public’s right to know about the legal system.
A healthy democracy depends on the media’s capacity to report on court proceedings, which is why this ruling is so important. Every incident that takes place in courtrooms must be allowed to be covered by the media. The opinions of the court are reflected in judicial orders, and formal court reports are usually preceded by media reports. To prevent misunderstandings, the Indian Supreme Court stressed that justices should speak with prudence and constraint when speaking orally. This ruling emphasizes how important press freedom is to preserving a functioning democracy.
NAME: ISHANVI BISWAL
UNIVERSITY: KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW, BHUBANESWAR