THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA VS M.R VIJAYABHASKAR& Ors.

 

THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA VS M.R VIJAYABHASKAR& Ors.

 

COURT:Supreme Court of India

PETITION NUMBER:1767 of 2021

CITATION : LL 2021 SC 244

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 6/05/2021

JUDGES: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

 Justice M.R Shah

PROVISION:

Constitution of India

·       Article 19(1)(A)- Guarantees Freedom of Speech and Expression

 

 

FACTS

1.      The Special Leave Petition arises from an order dated 30 April 2021 by Division Bench of the Madras High Court filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that Covid- 19 protocols are followed in polling booths in Karur Legislative Assembly Constituency of Tamil Nadu.

2.      With rising in number of corona cases, a candidate for the AIADMK in the Karur Legislative Assembly Constituency who is also the District Secretary on April 16, 2021 sent a representation of Election Commission urging them to take sufficient steps and procedure to ensure the health and safety of officers in the counting booth. After not getting any response from Election Commission, a writ petition in High Court was filed seeking directions that significant steps be taken and arrangement be made on May 2, 2021 in accordance with Covid 19 protocols and also to ensure fair counting of votes in the 135-Karur Legislative Assembly Constituency.

3.      After hearing the writ petition, the order was issued on April 26, 2021 by two judge division bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Chief Justice of Madras HC Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice SenthilkumarRamamoorthy.

4.      Even though the Madras High Court issued the decision, the Election Commission was upset by the remarks and observations made by the judges during proceeding which did not go down well. The remarks which were made by the judges and were pointed out in the petition are – EC is “the institution that is singularly responsible for the second waveof COVID-19” and EC “should be put up for murder charges”.

5.      Despite the fact that the remarks were made orally and were not documented in the High Court’s order. The media covered them, making headline in print, electronic and social media. This made the Election Commission approach the Supreme Court of India alleging that their miscellaneous application was not considered on its merit, as well as the Madras High Court’s oral observation and remark.

 

ISSUE

1.     Whether the media should be restrained from reporting oral remarks made during Judicial Proceedings?

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1.      The Supreme Court pointed out that any oral remarks made during Judicial Proceedings are never recorded as part of order or judgment thus, the question of removing it 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” remarks the judges should restrain themselves in open courts. It was emphasized that language made by the judges while making observations orally or in judgments should be judicially appropriate.

2.   The Supreme Court 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 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.

3.   The court also took the example of print media reporting the trails and court proceedings during the British Raj like the sedition trail of LokmanyaTilak. The Supreme Court judges advised that it would be better if the Constitutional Authorities acceptthe new reality rather than complaining. The court also praised the High Courts for its commendable job during the covid crisis.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Language is an important instrument in judicial process and is sensitive in constitutional values. The Election Commission has a track record of being and independent body and it should maintain being so. However, the remarks made were more in the intention to urge the Election Commission to ensure strict compliance of protocols and if the High Court had a more cautious approach after circumspection then this grievance would not have risen.

 

PRECEDENTS

·       NareshShridharMirajkar vs State of Maharashtra(1966 SC)

·       Express Newspaper (P) Limited vs Union of India(1959 SC)

·       Emperor vs BalgangadharTilak(1908)

·       Kashi Nath Roy vs State of Bihar(1996 SC)

·       Dr. Raghubir Saran vs State of Bihar and Anr(1964 SC)

 

 

 

Written by:

Ruchi Kumari

B.A.LL.B (Hons)

3^rd Year

 Allahabad University