The author of this article is Adarsh Sachdev, a student of 3 year LLB at Government Law College, Ernakulam.
Through the article, the author has tried to review the Judgement of Honorable Supreme Court of India in the case of The Chief Election Commissioner of India Versus M.R Vijayabhaskar & Ors [LL 2021 SC 244]
Introduction
Media has played an important role in bringing the attention of the public and the
rulers regarding issues that would otherwise be covered up. Media is considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy. The hands of Media can be seen in various instances upon which it thrust itself into the common conscience of the people to make them react and moreover act in order to keep the fabrics of Indian democracy alive and unaltered.
The balance between Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary is as much sine qua non for democracy as freedom of the press. Each pillar acts in checking the unethical acts of the other. Indian Constitution has been framed in such a way by the makers of the Indian Constitution so that neither of the pillars can go astray. Media reflects the common conscience of the people and also has the added advantage of both informing as well as manipulating the masses. In this light, the media is to be free from all sorts of corruptions and notions of alterations but at the same time, excessive control shall make media a mere political tool for propaganda and hence freedom of media is a must. So a common confusion that is bound to arise is how much such freedom is exercised. This matter has cropped up again in view of a recent oral remark made by the Division Bench of the high court, comprising of Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on April 26, 2021, against the Election Commission.
Abstract
The question raised in the introduction about the freedom of media and press was addressed in this case. Accordingly in this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the matter wherein the Election Commission wanted to seek directions from the Hon’ble court to restrain the media from reporting the remarks passed by the Madras High Court judges against the election commission wherein they were blamed and held responsible for the 2nd wave on account that the remarks and observations so made by the high court judges were without proof or material on record.
Facts of the case
A Writ Petition was filed in Madras High Court to ensure that Covid-19 protocols are followed in the polling booths in Karur Legislative Assembly Constituency of Tamil Nadu and that was accepted by the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution by the candidate of AIADMK of Karur Legislative Assembly Constituency and who was also the District Secretary filed a writ petition. On 16th April 2021, a representation was sent to the Election Commission to take adequate steps and precautions to secure the health and safety of officers in the counting booth in light of the rising number of Corona cases. Due to the lack of response, a writ petition in the High Court was filed to seek directions that significant steps are taken and arrangements be made following covid-19 protocols on 2nd May 2021 also to ensure fair counting of votes at the 135- Karur Legislative Assembly Constituency. This writ petition was heard by a 2 judge division bench of Madras High Court comprising of Chief Justice of Madras High Court Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar
Ramamoorthy and the order were passed on 26th April 2021. Even though the order was passed by the Madras High Court the thing which irked the election commission was the remarks passed and certain observations made by the judges during the proceedings which did not go down well.
The remarks which were made by the judges and were pointed out in the petition are–“The solely responsible institution for 2nd wave of covid is the Election Commission” and “Election Commission should be charged for murder.”
Even as the remarks were made orally and this was not recorded in the order of the high court but the media reported the remarks which made headlines in print, electronic & social media. This made the election commission file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India that their miscellaneous application was not assessed based on merits and also regarding the oral observation and remarks of the Madras High Court.
Issue before the court
1. Whether restriction be imposed on the media from reporting oral remarks made during judicial proceedings?
Legal Provision Concerned
Article19(1)(A) of the Constitution of India-
(1) All citizens shall have the right:
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) omitted
(g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business
Arguments by Appellants
1. The primary argument presented by the counsel representing the Election Commission was that the remarks and observations made by the high court judges are made without proof or material on record. It was also contended that the judges gave no opportunity to the election commission to explain themselves and the steps and measures taken for maintaining the covid-19 protocol. Such remarks had the effect of tainting the image of the election commission as it was widely reported by the media. These remarks, therefore, were held to diminish the faith of people in the election commission and further would point out its constitutional authority.
2. Further, it was also contended by the appellants that the scope of judicial review is limited pertaining to matters of election and its conduct. The advocate explained that the election commission had conducted elections during covid in many states and could control and take necessary steps for its prevention. He asserted that the enforcement of protocols and measures is in the hands of the State as the election commission during elections does not take over the governance by a State. Even the personnel deployed on the ground while elections are limited in number.
3. It was further argued that even an analysis of the data would indicate that election did not play an important role in the rise of covid cases in the country. The counsel submitted that the election commission had issued guidelines to be followed during elections and constrained the scope of political campaigns. The election commission faced undue prejudice due to the oral remarks and observations made by the Madras High Court.
Defence by Respondents
Representing the respondent the counsels held up the defence by pointing out the fact that the Election Commission enjoys a wide range of powers during the period of elections in a State like replacing or suspending district magistrates, police officers, Director-General of Police and even deploying paramilitary forces to ensure that the rules, guidelines or directives are followed. Also, the election commission was responsible for the execution of safety measures and covid protocols during elections which they had failed.
Observations of the Court
After hearing both the parties and considering a number of factors the Supreme Court observed that oral remarks made during any judicial proceedings are never recorded as part of the order or judgement and thus, the question of removing does not arise. The court did agree that the remarks made by the Madras High Court judges were harsh. The Apex Court said that while making such ‘off the cut remark” statements the judges should restrain themselves in open courts. It was emphasized that the language used by the judges while making observations orally or in judgements should have judicial propriety.
The Supreme Court also rejected the prayer of the election commission to restrict the media from reporting any oral remarks made by the judges as it strikes the fundamental principles guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, the judges explained that the concept of open court requires that the information regarding the judicial proceedings in a court must be accessible to the public and thus it should be made available in the public domain.
In order to further substantiate its position, the court took the example of print media reporting the trials or court proceedings during the British Raj like the sedition trial of Lokmanya Tilak. The Supreme Court judges advised that it would be better if the Constitutional Authorities accept the new reality rather than complaining. The court also praised the High Courts for its commendable job during the covid crisis.
Conclusion
In summing up the whole judgment it can be stated that this judgment plays a very important role in keeping the freedom of media intact in reporting the court proceeding. Request for recent suppression of freedom of media is often a reminder of the periods of emergency by the Indira Gandhi regime. However, such freedom should not be used as a political vessel by media, who are often chasing sensational news to increase their publicity and to stir up controversy against the ruling regime or their oppositions. It is often a sad reality that the way media reports are propagated stirs up confusion in the minds of the common man that any opinion stated by the courts are also its decision as Media in recent times have focused on financial benefits over social commitments. The Supreme Court of India further emphasized the need for judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. This observation made in the said judgment also highlighted the need of judges to exercise restrain while making any oral observations. The circumstances which led the court to state such are often ones that require introspection that the future judicial class may also be given the guidelines as to what may be perceived dignified in their conduct and expressions both in courts and outside. This judgement in short reiterates the necessity of press freedom as well as a check on the expressions and conduct of judges for the furtherance of the noble visions of that envisaged by the constitution framers.
