Won't restrain media from reporting oral observations during proceedings in public interest: SC bats for free flow of dialogue
File Photo

Batting for "free flow of dialogue" in courts, the Supreme Court on Monday said it would neither restrain the media from reporting oral observations made during proceedings in public interest, nor demoralise high courts -- "vital pillars of democracy" -- by asking them to refrain from raising questions.

The apex court said, however, that it's order would consider Election Commission's submission that "wanton charges" levelled against it by the Madras High Court were unwarranted and would try to strike a balance between two Constitutional bodies.

It termed as "too far-fetched" the poll panel's plea for restraining media from reporting remarks made during court proceedings.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah reserved its order on the EC appeal against the Madras High Court's "critical" remarks holding it responsible for surge in COVID-19 cases in the country and fastening responsibility on its officials with the murder charge.

It assured the poll panel that the high court's remarks were not meant to "run down" a Constitutional body but may have been made "momentarily" in the flow of discussions and that's why it was not in the judicial order.

"Election Commission is a seasoned constitutional body, entrusted with the responsibility to ensure free and fair election in the country. It should not be rattled by the observations.

"We cannot say in today's time the media will not report the discussions taking place in the court as it is also in public interest. The discussions that take place in courts are also important as is the order. Therefore, unfolding of the process in the court of law is in public interest," the bench said.

It further said that the media is a "powerful watchdog" of the unfolding process in court of law and "we cannot object to that reporting by media".

‘‘We have an Indian pattern of arguments in our courts. It's not a monologue that one person will speak and then judges will speak. We have discussions here and there is an aspect of application of mind," the bench said.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the poll panel said that it is not objecting to the discussions and observations made by the High Courts but it has to be in the context of matter in hand and there should not be any off-the-cuff remarks.

The bench said: "Some observations are made in larger public interest. Sometimes it is anguish and sometimes they are made to make a person do the work, he is required to do...some judges are reticent just as some judges are verbose.

"We don't want to demoralise our High Courts by asking them not to question as they are vital pillars of democracy. There should be free flow of dialogue. Things are often said in an open dialogue between bar and bench".

Justice Chandrachud said that what he is saying is not to belittle the poll panel and it should not be taken in that context.

"Democracy survives when its institutions are strengthened. Dialogue only strengthens the body," he said, adding, "We must protect the judicial sanctity of the process. We need to ensure that judges are independent enough to have their views. We have to ensure that the media reports everything that happens in courts, so that judges conduct proceedings with dignity".

The bench said that the poll panel must understand that the "media should be able to report everything to create a sense of accountability. Often, the purpose of dialogue in court is to create an umbrella of discussions. Normally, questions are asked about the subject matter of the case but sometimes dialogue goes beyond the envelope".

The top court noted that the poll panel in its appeal has called the EC a Constitutional body and said that high court being another such body should not make comments against it.

It added, "Power of judicial review has been given to the courts but it does not mean that we are taking over the powers of the Parliament, a sovereign body. It does not mean one organ is bigger than the other. We want each organ of the country to be independent." The top court observed that nowadays there is electronic media and social media and they are running 24X7 and moreover there is a rush for breaking news and "we know what we are saying now is being reported. To contain what we want to ask or say in court will not do justice to the judicial process".

The high court had, on April 26, castigated the EC for the surge in COVID-19 cases during the second wave of the pandemic, holding it "singularly" responsible for the spread of the viral disease, called it the "the most irresponsible institution" and even said its officials may be booked under murder charges.

(To receive our E-paper on whatsapp daily, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)

Free Press Journal