Not part of judicial records: SC refuses to expunge oral remarks of MHC

The Supreme Court on Thursday said Madras High Court’s oral observations holding the EC responsible for surge in COVID cases are not part of “official judicial record” leaving no question of expunging them and also trashed the plea that media be restrained from reporting such remarks, saying freedom of speech “extends to reporting proceedings of judicial institutions as well”.

The top court, referring to Constitutional importance of high courts and EC, said it has attempted to strike a balance and emphasised that there was a “need for judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation”. Rejecting the plea of the poll panel, a bench comprising justices DY Chandrachud and M R Shah said the oral remarks are not a part of official judicial record, and therefore, the question of expunging them does not arise.

The 31-page judgment said, “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...we find no substance in the prayer of the EC for restraining the media from reporting on court proceedings.

“This Court stands as a staunch proponent of the freedom of the media to report court proceedings. This we believe 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”.

Justice Chandrachud, writing judgment for the bench, said the duty to preserve independence of the judiciary and to allow freedom of expression of judges in court is one end of the spectrum. “The other end of the spectrum, which is equally important, is that the power of judges must not be unbridled and judicial restraint must be exercised, before using strong and scathing language to criticise any individual or institution,” it said.

The 31-page judgment said, “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...we find no substance in the prayer of the EC for restraining the media from reporting on court proceedings...”