Freedom Of Speech & Expression Extends To Reporting Judicial Proceedings: Supreme Court Rejects ECI Prayer To Stop Media Reporting Of Oral Remarks

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:5 mins read

Freedom Of Speech & Expression Extends To Reporting Judicial Proceedings: Supreme Court Rejects ECI Prayer To Stop Media Reporting Of Oral Remarks

Case: Election Commission of India v MR Vijaya Bhaskar

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah

Case No: [CA No. 1767 of 2021]

Court Observation: “Freedom of speech and expression extends to reporting proceedings in judicial institutions as well”,

“It would do us no good to prevent new forms of media from reporting our work”,

“Courts are entrusted to perform crucial functions under the law. Their work has a direct impact, not only on the rights of citizens but also the extent to which the citizens can exact accountability from the executive whose duty it is to enforce the law. Citizens are entitled to ensure that courts remain true to their remit to be a check on arbitrary exercises of power. The ability of citizens to do so bears a direct correlation to the seamless availability of information about what happens in a court during the course of proceedings. Therein lies the importance of freedom of the media to comment on and write about proceedings”,

“With the advent of technology, we are seeing reporting proliferate through social media forums which provide real-time updates to a much wider audience. As we have discussed in the previous section, this is an extension of the freedom of speech and expression that the media possesses. This constitutes a ̳virtual’ extension of the open court. This phenomenon is not a cause of apprehension, but a celebration of our constitutional ethos which bolsters the integrity of the judiciary by focusing attention on its functions”.

“The courts must be open in the physical and metaphorical sense, except in in-camera proceedings…open access to courts is essential to safeguard valuable constitutional freedoms”,

“We find no substance in the prayer of Election Commission to restrain media from reporting court proceedings. It is essential to hold the judiciary accountable”,

“Acceptance of a new reality is the surest way of adapting to it. Our public constitutional institutions must find better responses than to complain”,

“A degree of caution and restraint on part of the High Court would have allayed these proceedings. Oral remarks are not part of the order and hence there is no question of expungement”,

“The remarks of the High Court were harsh. The metaphor is inappropriate. The High Court-if indeed it did make the oral observations which have been alluded to -did not seek to attribute culpability for the COVID-19 pandemic in the country to the EC. What instead it would have intended to do was to urge the EC to ensure stricter compliance of COVID-19 related protocols during elections… All that needs to be clarified is that the oral observations during the course of the hearing have passed with the moment and do not constitute a part of the record. The EC has a track record of being an independent constitutional body that shoulders a significant burden in ensuring the sanctity of electoral democracy. We hope the matter can rest with a sense of balance which we have attempted to bring”,

“We don’t want to demoralize our High Courts, which are doing tremendous work during the COVID…We cannot tell the Judges that confine yourself to pleadings. The HC Judges are doing tremendous work, burning the midnight oil, they are overwhelmed. They know what’s happening on the ground. It is bound to affect your psyche”

[doc id=5049]

Previous Posts

“No Means No, The Word ‘No’ Does Not Need Any Further Explanation : Himachal Pradesh HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Raping Minor

States Have No Power To ‘Identify’ Socially & Educationally Backward Classes After 102nd Constitution Amendment: Supreme Court Holds By 3:2 Majority

Authorities Under Disaster Management Act Have No Power To Alter Fee Structure Of Private Schools

Family Courts Constituted Under Secular Law; Cannot Turn Away Parties Seeking Divorce Under Customary Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of the Rajasthan Schools (Regulation of Fee) Act; Reads Down Sections 4, 7 and 10 Download Judgement