Date of Judgment: 6th May 2021
Judges: Justice D.Y Chandrachud, Justice M.R Shah
The division bench of the Supreme Court noted that the foundation of our republic is the judiciary’s independence from the executive and legislative branches. Being independent means not only not being swayed by the actions of those in authority but also being unbiased, free of bias, and free to conduct court procedures in a way that respects the established norms of natural justice. The oath taken by judges when they assume their positions requires them to uphold the constitution in the course of their duties. A judiciary that is independent must also be answerable to the people for its deeds (and omissions).
The bench emphasized that the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in superior courts, varies for each judge and significantly influences the administration of justice. Comments or issues raised by the bench in oral hearings offer clarity not only to adjudicating judges but also empower lawyers to shape their arguments with creative spontaneity. Judges often adopt the role of a devil’s advocate, prompting responses that contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the case and test the strength of presented arguments. This dynamic interaction represents the true art of advocacy. The court’s order or judgment should reflect a process of reflection and the judge’s thoughtful consideration of submissions from opposing parties.
Striking a balance between the rights of two autonomous constitutional entities
On one side stands the Madras High Court, recognized as a constitutional court, commanding significant respect within the judicial framework of the nation. Functioning as both appellate courts and courts of original jurisdiction, especially in writ petitions under Article 226, High Courts play a pivotal role. They often serve as the initial recourse for citizens whose fundamental rights face infringement. High Courts maintain constant connection with the ground-level challenges in their respective regions. Notably, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, High Courts nationwide demonstrated remarkable foresight in addressing the public health crisis. Their expressions of concern when confronted with harsh realities should be perceived in this context.
Contrastingly, we have the Election Commission (EC), a constitutional body entrusted with the vital role of overseeing and managing elections as per Article 324 of the Constitution. For over seven decades, the EC has played a crucial role in upholding the principles of our constitutional democracy by conducting fair elections and regulating related conduct. The independence and integrity of the EC are fundamental for the flourishing of democracy. This responsibility encompasses a spectrum of powers, duties, and diverse functions, all essential for orchestrating the recurring process that injects vitality into our democratic political arenas.
On conduct of Judges, and language used:
The bench underscored the importance of judges exercising caution when making impromptu remarks in open court, as these could be prone to misinterpretation. Language used, both in court sessions and in judgments, must align with judicial propriety, serving as a vital tool in a constitutionally sensitive judicial process. Judicial language acts as a transparent view into a conscience attuned to constitutional ethos, and without its subtle equilibrium, the language risks losing its symbolic role as a guardian of human dignity. High Courts, entrusted with the power of judicial review under the Constitution, hold a position so elevated that it forms a fundamental aspect of constitutional features. However, this elevated responsibility is directly linked to the nature and dimensions of the entrusted power. The High Court could have assuaged the concerns raised in this case through a measure of caution and circumspection. It’s crucial to clarify that oral observations during hearings are transient and do not become a part of the official record. The Election Commission, known for its independent constitutional standing, shoulders a significant responsibility in upholding the sanctity of electoral democracy.
Furthermore, it was emphasized that oral remarks do not constitute an official part of the judicial record; hence, the question of expunging them does not arise. It is a well-established principle that the formal stance of a judicial institution is manifested through its judgments and orders, not its verbal comments during hearings. Therefore, considering the aforementioned points, the bench dismisses the Election Commission’s request to restrain the media from reporting on the court proceedings. The court affirms its unwavering support for media freedom in reporting on court matters, a cornerstone of the freedom of speech and expression. This freedom is essential for those who speak, those who seek information, and, most importantly, for holding the judiciary accountable to the values that substantiate its role as a constitutional institution.
Freedom of press relating to Court proceedings
The Court held that freedom of speech and expression also extends to reporting the proceedings that happen in courts including oral observations made by judges.
“Article 19(1)(a) covers freedom of press. Freedom of speech and expression covers freedom to cover court proceedings too…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,” the Court said.