[Breaking] Freedom of speech covers freedom to cover court proceedings: Supreme Court dismisses ECI plea against Madras HC "murder" observations

Constitutional bodies should do better than complain about the reporting of court proceedings, the Supreme Court held on May 6 as it dismissed the plea filed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) against observations recently made by the Madras High Court (The Chief Election Commissioner of India v. MR Vijayabhaskar & Ors)..The order was passed by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah in a plea calling into question the oral observations made by the Madras High Court to the effect that the poll body was singularly responsible for the COVID-19 situation in India and that it should probably be put on murder charges for failing to ensure compliance of COVID-19 protocol during election rallies..Pronouncing its verdict today, the Bench held,"In a constitutional framework based on checks and balances can ECI set up a plea when there is constitutional immunity to a body? We say courts must be open save and except for in camera proceedings like marital privacy etc.".On the freedom of the media to report court proceedings, the Court held,"...open access to court is the cornerstone of constitutional freedom. Article 19(1)(a) covers freedom of press. Freedom of speech and expression covers freedom to cover court proceedings too...".Referring to the reporting of court proceedings in real-time by the digital media, the Court said,"Now people are more digital oriented and hence look to 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 its a part of freedom of speech and expression of press. Its an extension of open court.".Regarding the specific remarks made by the Madras High Court, the Bench noted,"...we understand that the High Court was facing rising cases of COVID-19. The remarks were harsh and the metaphor improper. High Court did not attribute culpability to the ECI for the spread of COVID-19...".Justice Chandrachud thus called for judicial restraint when it comes to making "off-the-cuff remarks", which can be open for misinterpretation."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 order said..The Court thus found no substance in the prayer of ECI to restrain the media from reporting court proceedings. "It is essential to hold the judiciary accountable," the Court recorded..The High Court had made the remark while hearing a petition by AIADMK's R Vijayabhaskar raising concerns over whether adequate facilities are in place to ensure COVID-19 protocol during vote counting at the Karur constituency. During the April 26 hearing, Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee had remarked,“You are the only institution that is responsible for the situation today. No action against political parties taking rallies despite every order of the Court. Your Election Commission should be put up on murder charges probably!”.The ECI had first approached the High Court taking objection to the said remark. In its plea before Madras High Court, the poll body had sought directions to be issued to media houses to confine their reports to observations recorded in orders or judgments and to refrain from reporting on oral observations made during court proceedings in the case. However, the High Court declined to entertain the plea, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court..When the appeal was heard on May 3, the Supreme Court had made it clear that it cannot interfere with the oral observations made by High Courts, saying that such dialogue between Bar and Bench while hearing cases is an essential facet of the judicial process."The discussions that take place are of importance and are in public interest. It’s not a monologue that one person will speak and then judges will speak," said Justice Chandrachud.Such dialogues and reporting of such dialogues by media create accountability, the top court had said while underscoring that anything to the contrary could be seen as affecting independence of High Courts.."We have to protect the judicial sanctity of the process. We have to make sure that High Court judges and Chief Justices are independent to make views. We have to make sure that media reports everything that happens in court so that we judges conduct proceedings with dignity," the Court said.Any order passed in favour of the ECI could affect the morale of High Courts, the apex court added."We are looking at this from a long term and impact on functioning of High Courts. We don't want to demoralise our High Courts. They are vital pillars of our democracy. Things are often said in an open dialogue between bar and bench," the Court had opined. .[BREAKING] "Don't want to demoralise High Courts, media should be allowed to report oral observations:" Supreme Court to Election Commission.The plea by ECI stated that the Madras High Court, being an independent constitutional authority, made serious allegations of murder on another independent constitutional authority without any basis, which has ultimately dented both the institutions..The High Court being a Constitutional court of first record ought not have made the said oral observation levelling such serious allegation against ECI without any proof, it was submitted. The remarks were uncalled for, blatantly disparaging and derogatory, it was contended. .[Read the order]