Landmark Judgment on Media right on reporting oral Court proceedings Admin LANDMARK JUDGMENT Mon, Oct 04, 2021, at ,12:10 PM Landmark Judgment on Media right on reporting oral Court proceedingsName of the Case: The Chief Election Commissioner of India vs. M.R. Vijayabhaskar & Ors., C.A. No. 1767 of 2021Date: May 6, 2021Judges: Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice M.R. ShahIssue: What are the contours which outlines judicial conduct? What are the concerns courts must be alive to in an age defined by the seamless flow of information? What purpose does the media serve in a courtroom? Fact of the Case: The petitioner, The Chief Election Commissioner of India, has filed a petition against the oral remarks made by Madras High Court that ECI was “singularly responsible for COVID second wave” and that its officers “should probably be booked for murder”.The ECI has urged following submission the bench: The High Court ought not to have made disparaging oral observations that the EC is the “the institution that is singularly responsible for the second wave of COVID-19” and that the EC “should be put up for murder charges”. The remarks made by the High Court were widely reported in the media and have tarnished the image of the EC as an independent constitutional authority. These remarks have reduced the faith of the people in the EC and undermined the sanctity of its constitutional authority. The scope of judicial review over the EC in matters pertaining to the conduct of elections is limited and courts should exercise restraint while making observations about the EC or the electoral process, as it falls within the domain of another expert constitutional authority; The observations of the High Court during the oral hearings, which are not part of the written judicial record, have caused undue prejudice to the EC; The media must ensure there is accurate reporting of court proceedings and proceedings must not be sensationalized, leading to a loss of public confidence. Directions and guidelines must be framed on the manner of reporting court proceedings; A balance must be maintained between the conduct of court proceedings and the freedom of the media. Media reporting which suggests that a court has cast aspersions on any person or functionary is incorrect; and Though the views of a court are reflected through its judgments, oral comment of judges are quoted in the mainstream media which may give an impression of an institutional opinion. This exceeds the boundaries of judicial propriety. Judgment: The division bench of Supreme Court observed that the independence of the judiciary from the executive and the legislature is the cornerstone of our republic. Independence translates to being impartial, free from bias and uninfluenced by the actions of those in power, but also recognizes the freedom to judges to conduct court proceedings within the contours of the well-established principles of natural justice. Judges in the performance of their duty must remain faithful to the oath of the office they hold, which requires them to bear allegiance to the constitution. An independent judiciary must also be one which is accountable to the public in its actions (and omissions).The bench added that the manner in which judicial proceedings are conducted, especially in our superior courts, is unique to each judge and holds great weight in the dispensation of justice. The issues raised or comments made by the Bench during an oral hearing provide clarity not just to the judges who adjudicate upon the matter, but also allow the lawyers to develop their arguments with a sense of creativity founded on a spontaneity of thought. Many a times, judges play the role of a devil’s advocate with the counsel to solicit responses which aid in a holistic understanding of the case and test the strength of the arguments advanced before them. That is where the real art of advocacy comes to play. The order or judgment of the court must indicate a process of reflection and of the application of mind of the judge to the submissions of opposing parties.Balancing the rights of two independent constitutional authoritiesOn one hand is the Madras High Court, which is a constitutional court and enjoys a high degree of deference in the judicial structure of this country. The High Courts perform an intrinsic role as appellate courts and as courts of first instance in entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 (and as court of original civil and criminal jurisdiction in certain cases). They are often the first point of contact for citizens whose fundamental rights have been violated. High Courts are constantly in touch with ground realities in their jurisdictions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the High Courts across the country have shown commendable foresight in managing the public health crisis which threatens to submerge humanity. Their anguish when they come face to face with reality must be understood in that sense.On the other hand is the EC, a constitutional authority tasked with the critical task of undertaking superintendence and control of elections under Article 324 of the Constitution. The EC has facilitated the operation of our constitutional democracy by conducting free and fair elections and regulating conduct around them for over seven decades. Its independence and integrity are essential for democracy to thrive. This responsibility covers powers, duties and myriad functions which are essential for conducting the periodic exercise of breathing life into our democratic political spaces.On conduct of Judges, and language usedThe bench emphasized on the need for judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. Language, both on the Bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety. Language is an important instrument of a judicial process which is sensitive to constitutional values. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos. Bereft of its understated balance, language risks losing its symbolism as a protector of human dignity. The power of judicial review is entrusted to the High Courts under the Constitution. So high is its pedestal that it constitutes a part of the basic features of the Constitution. Yet responsibility bears a direct co-relationship which the nature and dimensions of the entrustment of power. A degree of caution and circumspection by the High Court would have allayed a grievance of the nature that has been urged in the present case. All that need 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 which shoulders a significant burden in ensuring the sanctity of electrol democracy. It was further stated that oral remarks are not a part of official judicial record, and therefore, the question of expunging them does not arise. It is trite to say that a formal opinion of a judicial institution is reflected through its judgments and orders, and not its oral observations during the hearing. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the Bench finds no substance in the prayer of the EC for restraining the media from reporting on the Court proceedings. It was added that Court stands as a staunch proponent of the freedom of the media to report court proceedings which is integral to the freedom of speech and expression of those who speak, of those who wish to hear and to be heard and above all, in holding the judiciary accountable to the values which justify its existence as a constitutional institution.