Freedom of the press relating to Court proceedings
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Date of the judgement: 6 May 2021
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah
Facts of the case
• The AIADMK candidate in the Karur Legislative Assembly constituency, who is also the district secretary, has approached the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure compliance with the Covid-19 protocol in the Karur Legislative Assembly constituency of Tamil Nadu.
• In response to the increasing number of corona cases, an AIADMK candidate represented the Election Commission on April 16, 2021, and asked the Election Commission to take appropriate measures to ensure the health and safety of workers at the counting site. Since the Election Commission did not respond, an order was sought to take the necessary steps to ensure a fair vote count and take action following the COVID-19 protocol on May 2, 2021, in the 135 Karur Legislative Assembly.
• On April 26, 2021, a two-judge bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamurthi heard the case.
• The Election Commission was angered by the statements and comments from the judges during the hearing. “The only body responsible for the second wave of Covid-19 is the Election Commission,” said the judge, adding that “the Election Commission should be tried for murder,” according to the petitioner.
• The matter was heard again by the Madras High Court on 30 April 2021, when it came to court to reconsider the steps taken by the ECB to comply with the Covid-19 protocol
• Various programs are closed with this command in mind. Aggrieved by the order, the ECI appealed to the Supreme Court as the complaint was not evaluated based on its merits, and there was no objection to the oral observations made in the previous hearing.
• Although the previous speech was oral and not documented by the decision of the Madras Court, this remark was widely circulated in print, electronic and social media.
Issues
- Should the media be prevented from reporting oral comments made during judicial proceedings?
- Are Judicial restraints necessary in some cases? ECI here was aggrieved by statements made by the judiciary against it which tarnished its image in the public discourse.
Important provisions
Constitution of India • Article 19 (1)(A)- Guarantees Freedom of Speech & Expression.
Contentions
Arguments on the petitioner’s side
• The Election Commission of India has filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. It proved its opinion by presenting the following evidence.
• Media coverage of the oral statements of a convicted person in judicial proceedings, as happened in this case, can have a significant negative impact on public discourse.
• It also argued that the High Court, an independent body of the country, should not make such insulting remarks to the ECI, which is a constitutionally independent body. Because it creates prejudice towards the system among people. Judicial review does not include elections.
• ECI also argued that the merits of various applications were not even reviewed adequately in the High Court and should be examined by the Supreme Court of India.
• A balance was sought between judicial action and freedom of the press and expression.
• Since the court‘s opinion is always reflected in the decision, the mainstream media still reports the oral statements of the judges. But this was only the opinion of the court and not the rulings.
Arguments on the respondent’s side:
Vijay Bhaskar is an AIADMK candidate and has pleaded the case along with Madras HC. They defended their actions as follows.
• They argued that the media reporting court decisions fully exercise freedom of speech and expression. Regarding the oral proceedings, he also said that keeping the issue away from public awareness causes confusion between the constitutional protection institutions and the people.
• They argued that lack of transparency of procedures may violate the right to information.
• Again, as the ECI is the only agency that regulates the conduct of elections, it is solely responsible for all consequences to the people during the elections.
• They also argued that these statements were made in the public interest and therefore did not contain any allegations of unsubstantiated or biased comments.[1]
Rationale
The judgement was laid down by a two-judge bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah.[2] The following reasoning was highlighted in the pronounced judgement by the honourable judges of the Supreme Court:
- Judicial independence and judicial action during legal proceedings:
Yes, the Supreme Court has recognised the need for caution and accountability of judges when expressing opinions in public meetings. Because the judiciary is one of the significant authorities in preserving the ideals of the constitution, false statements can cause misunderstanding and weaken the legitimacy of the judiciary. Thus, the judicial requirement was upheld, but the argument for no oral hearing showed that the statements had already been passed and that the prima facie case and the public interest had been denied.
- Oral records are not official court records:
Hence, the fact that the issue of their removal is undeniable, the SC also dismissed the ECI’s contention that it had omitted verbatim text from its public media coverage as a direct violation of Indian constitutional values. The fact that all proceedings are conducted in open court justifies that the coverage of all public statements is transparent and defended in the public domain.
- Media Freedom of Speech and Expression:
He also emphasised that this is part of the media’s right to freedom of speech and expression and cannot be abridged. This is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Coverage of judicial proceedings is also based on freedom of speech and acceptance of speech. According to law, courts are responsible for performing crucial functions. Their activities directly affect not only the rights of citizens but also the extent to which governments are held accountable for upholding the law. Citizens have a right to ensure that courts fulfil their duty to prevent arbitrary exercise of power. Access to personal information is affected when information about what is being challenged in court is readily available to the public during legal proceedings.
- Creating a balance in judicial function and independence:
All judges should have the right to comment on how to view the evidence presented. The judge’s choice of words depends on how naive he is, how well he speaks English, and how well he explains. Nothing is more detrimental to a judge’s ability to perform his judicial duties than to be persuaded to follow a particular pattern that may or may not be acceptable to an appellate court. Where the public interest conflicts, the public interest must prevail. To preserve the integrity of the case, it may be necessary to tolerate unfair and unjustified insults to witnesses. At the other end of the spectrum is the duty to preserve judicial independence and allow judges to express themselves freely. Equally important is the need to maintain judicial restraint and limit the powers of judges before making harsh statements or harsh criticism of individuals or organisations.
Defects in law
While passing judgment in this case, the Supreme Court drew attention to various rights and constitutional provisions.
In this process, various flaws were identified that were not good laws. So, Article 19(a), Article 324, including Freedom of the Press covered by Article 13, which is judicial review, Article 21, and defamation are some of the laws in question in the above case. This also includes judicial restraint not balanced with judicial independence, power and exercise of judicial review in Article 324, debate on freedom of the press etc.[3]
These were highlighted by various precedents on which the case was made.
Express Newspaper Ltd v Union of India[4]–
The Supreme Court cited this case to defend its arguments favouring the freedom of the press to report every court proceeding. In this particular case, two types of press freedom were identified. Emancipation implies freedom from coercion and external constraints and freedom for expression of opinion and debates and rational debates. Thus, this Court cited in the Vijayabhaskara case that freedom of the media is a new reality that all must accept as it leads to a democratic system in the public sphere.
AM Mathur v Pramod Kumar Gupta – Citing this case, the SC emphasised the importance of some degree of judicial restraint while balancing the independence of a constitutional body. Contemptuous behaviour and harsh language towards any witness appearing in court are outside of judicial propriety.[5]
Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra— This focused on the importance of open courts in a democracy.[6]
Swapnil Tripathi Vs. India’s Supreme Court—a three-judge bench here has emphasised live streaming of court proceedings suggesting that nothing should be filtered out of public discourse.[7]Keeping this in mind Supreme Court, in the present case, favoured the media reporting and held it to be sound in law.
Inference
In this case, the EC requested the Apex court to grant relief based on alleged oral statements made by another constitutional authority (the Madras High Court). There is no evidence that the courts have accepted the relief sought by the EC. The ruling protects the media’s ability to record court proceedings. Media coverage of courts is a prerequisite for democratic stability. The court appears to have abandoned claims to preserve the democratic fabric of the nation rather than the dignity of a particular constitutional institution. 14 Any values enshrined in the Constitution, especially those which form the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, cannot be ignored in defamation and criminal judgments. The SC also held that the issue of his dismissal was irrelevant as these oral statements did not form part of the official record of the proceedings. It is a cliché that the legal opinion of judicial authority is expressed in judgments and orders, not in oral statements in hearings. It is, therefore, clear that the Madras High Court seeks to strike a favourable balance between the demands of the two constitutional institutions.
– Vaidehi Vyas (Pravin Gandhi College of Law)
[1]The chief election commissioner of India vs. M.R Vijayabhaskar Latest Laws, https://www.latestlaws.com/latestcaselaw/2021/may/2021-latest-caselaw-236-sc/?cv=1 (last visited Nov 19th May, 2023).
[2] Suhani Sharma, “The Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs. M.R Vijayabhaskar & Ors.,” Indian Journal of Law and Mental Health (IJLMH), vol. 6, issue 3, pp. 385-391, DOI: https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.114772, available at: https://www.ijlmh.com/paper/the-chief-election-commissioner-of-india-vs-m-r-vijayabhaskar-ors-civil-appeal-no-1767-of-2021/ (last visited May 27, 2023).
[3] Indian Constitution, Article 19(a), 21, 324 & 13.
[4] Express Newspaper Ltd v Union of India, 1986 AIR 515.
[5] A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, (1990) 2 SCC 533.
[6] Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs State of Maharashtra, 1 1966 SCR (3) 744.
[7] Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme court of India, (2010) 4 SCC 653.