The Supreme Court has dismissed the Election Commission of India’s plea to restrain the media from reporting oral remarks made by judges in court. The EC had approached the Apex Court after a Bench (Madras High Court) of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy had remarked that the EC officers should be booked for murder for irresponsibly conducting political rallies amid the fierce second wave of coronavirus.
Before approaching the Supreme Court, the Election Commission had petitioned the Madras High court, raising the same grievance, but the State court refused to entertain it. “The post-mortem on either count may have to wait, particularly in the light of the immediate measures that may be put in place,” the High Court had said.
On May 3, the Supreme Court had refused to restrain the media from reporting oral remarks made by judges but had ensured the Election Commission that it would write a balanced order while preserving the strength of state courts and maintaining the sanctity of the Election Commission.
Today, on May 6, the Supreme Court pronounced in open court that freedom of speech includes media coverage of court proceedings. LiveLaw quoted the Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah saying, “Freedom of speech and expression extends to reporting proceedings in judicial institutions as well. The Courts’ works have a direct impact on the rights of citizens and also to the extent citizens can exact accountability from institutions.. It would do us no good to prevent new forms of media from reporting our work.”
Referring to the reporting of court proceedings in real-time by the digital media, the court also said, “Now people are more digital oriented and hence look to the internet for information. hence it would do no good to prevent a new medium to report proceedings. constitutional bodies will do better than complain about this……With the advent of technology we are seeing reporting with real time updates it’s a part of freedom of speech and expression of press. It’s an extension of open court”, reported Bar & Bench.
The Bench also referred to some foreign countries where courts live stream matters. According to a LiveLaw report, the Bench said, “The courts must be open in the physical and metaphorical sense, except in camera proceedings…open access to courts is essential to safeguard valuable constitutional freedoms….We cannot gag the reporting of proceedings.”
The Supreme Court ruled, “We find no substance in prayer of the Election Commission to restrain the media from reporting court proceedings. It is essential to hold the judiciary accountable.”
In the previous hearing before the Supreme Court, the Bench had said that they cannot demoralise the High Courts as they are vital pillars of the judicial process. The court held that sometimes judges say things spontaneously and they can “say something if they observe something. They have experience”. When Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi (appearing for EC) pointed out that the harsh criticism has to stop, Justice Shah retorted, “Harsh criticism is because we want orders to be followed. Sometimes orders are not followed. Last week, people died in a fire in Gujarat, the HC can say anything looking at the hard realities.”
The judgment may be read here
Related:
Election Commission officers should probably be booked for murder: Madras HC
SC refuses to restrain media from reporting HC oral remarks in EC plea