Author: Mandeep Singh, IIM Rohtak
To the Point
This case addresses whether the media can be restricted from reporting oral observations made by judges during court proceedings, especially when such comments are not included in the final order. The Election Commission of India (EC) sought judicial intervention after being aggrieved by the Madras High Court’s oral remarks, which had linked the EC to the second surge of COVID-19. The Supreme Court was thus called to consider key questions regarding open courts, judicial responsibility, media freedom, and the obligations that come with holding constitutional office.
Use of Legal Jargon
Central to this case are the doctrines of open courts, judicial propriety, and the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The petition raised issues of inherent jurisdiction, writ proceedings under Article 226, judicial review, in camera proceedings, and the principle of natural justice. The Supreme Court also discussed the Madrid Principles, which relate to the relationship between the media and judicial independence, as well as the basic structure doctrine concerning judicial review.
The Proof
Factual Background
In April 2021, during a sharp rise in COVID-19 cases, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court heard a writ petition concerning the strict observance of COVID-19 protocols at polling stations. During these hearings, the High Court made oral remarks suggesting the EC was singularly responsible for the second wave of COVID-19 and even mentioned the possibility of “murder charges.” These comments, although not part of any formal judicial order, were widely reported in the media.
Feeling that its reputation had been unfairly tarnished, the EC approached the Supreme Court. It requested that the media be directed to report only what forms part of the official judicial record and also sought protection for its officials from criminal complaints arising from such media reports.
The Supreme Court did not limit its analysis to the specific reliefs sought but also examined broader constitutional principles. These included the public’s right to information, the accountability of constitutional authorities, and the independence and propriety of judicial conduct.
Abstract
In a reasoned judgment authored by The Supreme Court denied the EC’s request to limit media coverage, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud. The Court underlined that open courts and transparent reporting are fundamental to democracy. It held that oral observations, unless made part of the official judicial record, do not constitute the final determination and cannot be expunged or used to restrict media freedom. The ruling affirmed the vital significance of unfettered media coverage for preserving public trust and institutional accountability, while also emphasising the necessity of judicial restraint in courtroom language. The Court found a careful balance between caution in judicial remarks and the principle that constitutional democracy demands transparency rather than secrecy.
Case Laws
The judgment references several significant Indian and comparative constitutional law cases. Important precedents cited include:
Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) 10 SCC 639: Endorsed live-streaming of court proceedings for public access.
A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta (1990) 2 SCC 533: Discussed judicial restraint and moderation in expression.
Kashi Nath Roy v. State of Bihar (1996) 4 SCC 539: Concerned expunging adverse remarks and the human element in judicial decisions.
Attorney General v. Leveller Magazine (1979) AC 440 (UK): A UK precedent on open justice.
Sirros v. Moore (1975) QB 118: Addressed judicial independence and immunity.
The judgment also draws on the Madrid Principles and leading global practices for transparency in court reporting.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, upholding the ideals of the Indian Constitution, refused to prevent the media from reporting oral observations made in open court. The Court acknowledged the discomfort such reporting might cause to institutions but emphasized that transparent reporting, including oral remarks, is vital for a healthy democracy and judicial accountability. The decision reinforces the significance of free speech, openness in judicial processes, and the responsibilities of constitutional officeholders. The Court also gently advised judges to choose their words carefully, recognizing that spoken words in court are powerful and can sometimes be misunderstood or sensationalized.
FAQS
Q1: Can the media be restricted from reporting oral observations made in court?
No. The Supreme Court held that such reporting is part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), subject only to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
Q2: Are oral remarks by judges legally binding?
No. Only the written judgments and orders form the judicial record; oral observations are not enforceable and cannot be expunged.
Q3: Why did the EC approach the Supreme Court?
The EC wanted to protect its reputation after being affected by widely reported oral observations and to prevent criminal action against its officials based on those media reports.
Q4: Di Q4: Were the observations made by the Madras High Court deemed flawed by the Supreme Court?
The Court found the remarks harsh and the metaphor inappropriate, but clarified that these did not amount to official judicial findings and so did not require expungement.
Q5: What is the larger message of this case?
This case reaffirms that transparency, robust media reporting, and open courts are essential for a constitutional democracy. The judiciary must remain open to public scrutiny, and freedom of expression remains paramount, even if it sometimes causes discomfort to institutions.
References
Supreme Court judgment: The Chief Election Commissioner of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar & Ors., MANU/SC/0341/2021
Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a), Article 226, Article 324
