Media Freedom to Report Court Proceedings Upheld: Supreme Court in Election Commission vs. M.R Vijayabhaskar (2021)

Date of the Judgment: May 6, 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 288
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M R Shah, J
Can a constitutional body claim immunity from judicial scrutiny? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question while examining the Election Commission of India’s (EC) plea to restrict media reporting of court proceedings. This case delves into the delicate balance between the judiciary’s accountability and the media’s freedom to report, especially concerning oral remarks made during court hearings. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, with M R Shah, J concurring.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras by M.R. Vijayabhaskar, a candidate for the 135-Karur Legislative Assembly Constituency. The petition sought to ensure that COVID-19 protocols were followed during the counting of votes on May 2, 2021. During the hearings, the Division Bench of the High Court allegedly made oral remarks attributing the surge in COVID-19 cases to the EC’s failure to implement safety measures during elections. The EC, aggrieved by these remarks, filed a miscellaneous application seeking to restrict media reporting to only what was part of the official judicial record and to prevent any coercive action against its officials based on media reports of the oral observations.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Madras High Court initially heard the writ petition concerning COVID-19 protocols during the election process. During the hearing, the High Court made oral remarks criticizing the EC for its alleged failure to enforce COVID-19 protocols, which were widely reported in the media. The EC filed a miscellaneous application seeking to restrict media reporting to only the official record and to prevent any coercive action against its officials based on media reports of the oral observations. The High Court disposed of the petition and closed the miscellaneous application, leading the EC to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to include the freedom of the press.
• Article 324 of the Constitution of India: This article vests the Election Commission of India with the power of superintendence, direction, and control of elections.

Arguments

The Election Commission of India (EC) argued that:

• The High Court’s oral remarks were disparaging, irrelevant to the case, and made without giving the EC a chance to explain its actions.
• The remarks tarnished the EC’s image as an independent constitutional authority.
• Judicial review of the EC’s conduct of elections should be limited, and courts should exercise restraint.
• The EC had taken adequate measures to enforce COVID-19 protocols, and the surge in cases was not solely attributable to the elections.
• Media reporting of oral remarks, which are not part of the official record, caused undue prejudice to the EC.
• There should be guidelines on reporting court proceedings to ensure accuracy and prevent sensationalism.

The respondent argued that:

• The EC has wide-ranging powers during elections, including deploying paramilitary forces and replacing officers, and thus is responsible for implementing safety measures.

The Court noted that the EC’s prayer to prevent the media from reporting court proceedings strikes at two fundamental principles: open court proceedings and the freedom of speech and expression.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court ought to have made disparaging oral observations against the Election Commission of India (EC).
2. Whether the media can be restricted from reporting oral observations made by judges during court proceedings.
3. The extent of judicial accountability to the public.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Court’s view on the authorities:

• Mohammed Shahabuddin vs State of Bihar [2010] 4 SCC 653*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of open courts, stating that the public has a right to access court proceedings.
• R vs Socialist Workers Printers, ex p Attorney General [1974] 3 WLR 801*: This case was used to underscore the disciplinary effect of public presence in court on the conduct of judges.
• Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs State of Maharashtra [1966] 3 SCR 744*: The Court referred to this case to discuss the importance of public evaluation of judicial conduct.
• Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court of India [2018] 10 SCC 639*: This case was cited to highlight the importance of live-streaming judicial proceedings and the use of technology to enhance public access.
• Express Newspaper (P) Limited vs Union of India 1959 SCR 12*: The Court used this case to affirm that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution implicitly includes the freedom of the press.
• LIC vs Manubhai D. Shah (Prof.) [1992] 3 SCC 637*: This case was cited to emphasize the role of the media in public education and disseminating news.
• Attorney General vs Leveller Magazine [1979] A.C. 440*: The Court relied on this case to state that courts should not discourage fair and accurate reports of proceedings.
• Emperor vs Balgangadhar Tilak (1908) 10 BOMLR 848*: This case was used to illustrate the historical significance of media reporting on court proceedings.
• Sirros vs Moore [1975] QB 118*: The Court cited this case to emphasize the need to protect judges from liability while acting judicially.
• Kashi Nath Roy vs State of Bihar [1996] 4 SCC 539*: This case was used to discuss the expunging of adverse remarks from judicial records.
• Dr Raghubir Saran vs State of Bihar and Another [1964] 2 SCR 336*: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that judges should be free to express their opinions.
• A.M Mathur vs Pramod Kumar Gupta [1990] 2 SCC 533*: This case was cited to highlight the need for judicial restraint and discipline.
• Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commr. [1978] 1 SCC 405*: This case was used to emphasize the functions of the Election Commission of India.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the principles of open justice and freedom of the press. The Court emphasized that public scrutiny of court proceedings is essential for maintaining transparency and accountability. The Court also recognized the importance of judicial independence and the need for judges to exercise restraint in their remarks. The Court sought to balance the rights of the Election Commission with the fundamental rights of the media and the public.

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court considered the following points:

• The EC’s prayer to restrict media reporting was not valid as it infringed on open court principles and freedom of the press.
• Oral remarks made by judges are not part of the official record and do not constitute a judgment or binding decision.
• While judges must exercise caution in their remarks, the media has the right to report on court proceedings.
• The judiciary is accountable to the public, and public scrutiny is crucial for maintaining transparency.
• The Court emphasized that the formal opinion of a judicial institution is reflected through its judgments and orders, not its oral observations during the hearing.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The concept of an open court requires that information relating to a court proceeding must be available in the public domain. Citizens have a right to know about what transpires in the course of judicial proceedings.”
• “Freedom of speech and expression extends to reporting the proceedings of judicial institutions as well.”
• “The media has over the years, transitioned from the predominance of newspapers in the printed form, to radio broadcasts, television channels and now, to the internet for disseminating news, views and ideas to wide audiences extending beyond national boundaries.”

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

• The media has the right to report court proceedings, including oral observations made by judges.
• Oral remarks made by judges during hearings are not part of the official judicial record.
• Judges must exercise caution in their remarks, but the judiciary is accountable to the public.
• Open court proceedings and freedom of the press are essential for maintaining transparency and accountability.
• The judiciary must adapt to evolving technology and the use of new media for reporting court proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case, but it emphasized the need for judges to exercise caution in their remarks and for the media to report court proceedings accurately.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the media has the right to report court proceedings, including oral observations made by judges, as it is integral to the freedom of speech and expression and the principle of open justice. This judgment reinforces the importance of public scrutiny of the judiciary and the need for transparency in the judicial process. The judgment does not change the previous position of law but rather reaffirms and clarifies the existing principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, upholding the media’s right to report court proceedings. The Court emphasized that oral remarks made by judges during hearings are not part of the official record and that judges must exercise caution in their remarks. However, the Court also affirmed the importance of open court proceedings and the freedom of the press, stating that public scrutiny is crucial for maintaining transparency and accountability in the judicial process.

Category

Parent Category: Constitutional Law
Child Categories:

• Freedom of Speech and Expression
• Judicial Review
• Election Law
• Media Law
• Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India
• Article 324, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: Can the media report everything that happens in court?
A: Yes, the media generally has the right to report court proceedings, including oral observations made by judges. However, they should ensure accuracy and avoid sensationalism.

Q: Are judges’ oral remarks legally binding?
A: No, oral remarks made by judges during hearings are not legally binding. The formal opinion of a judicial institution is reflected through its judgments and orders.

Q: Why is it important for court proceedings to be open to the public?
A: Open court proceedings ensure transparency and accountability in the judicial process. Public scrutiny helps maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Q: Can the court restrict media from reporting court proceedings?
A: No, the court cannot generally restrict the media from reporting court proceedings, as this would infringe on the freedom of the press and the principle of open justice.

Q: What is the role of the judiciary in a democracy?
A: The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all actions of the executive are within the boundaries of the constitution.