Case: Election Commission of India v. MR Vijaya Bhaskar
The Supreme Court upheld the freedom of media to record oral observations and discussions made by judges and lawyers during a court process in the landmark case.
A bench comprised of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah ruled that the right to free expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes the right to report on court proceedings. The bench gave its verdict in a petition filed by the Election Commission of India seeking to prevent media from reporting oral remarks made by judges. This petition was presented in response to an oral statement made by the Madras High Court that the ECI "should probably be booked for murder" for being "singularly responsible for COVID second wave" by allowing election rallies.
The Supreme Court stated that ECI's request to limit media coverage of court hearings violates two important constitutional principles: open court procedures and the fundamental right to free speech and expression. The concept of Open Court mandates that information about court processes is made public. The Supreme Court began by debating how the ECI's petition would affect the principle of open courts.
Courts must be accessible, both physically and metaphorically. Except for in-camera proceedings in exceptional cases, such as cases involving child sexual abuse or matrimonial proceedings involving marital privacy, the Supreme Court stated that our legal system is founded on the principle that open access to courts is necessary to protect valuable constitutional freedoms. An open court system ensures that judges follow the law and behave with integrity. A judge's behaviour may be restrained by public debate and criticism.
"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 on 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 proceedings. Therein lies the importance of freedom of the media to comment on and write about proceedings", the Court observed.
The Court stated that there was no question of expunging the High Court's oral statements because they were not part of the judicial record. At the same time, the bench stated that the High Court's statements were harsh, and that the metaphor used was unsuitable. The Court instructed the justices to use caution while making off-the-cuff remarks.