Real-time court updates part of press freedom: SC

Ruling that any gag on media from reporting court proceedings would be retrograde, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the internet has revolutionized the court reporting and open court hearing ensures that information relating to a court proceeding is available in public domain.

An open court proceeding ensures “public scrutiny” and “transparency.”

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud heading a bench also comprising Justice M.R. Shah said that the high court should exercise a “degree of caution and circumspection” in making oral observations in the course of the hearing more so when party in question is another constitutional authority.

The court ruled out any curbs on the media and counseled the high court to exercise caution and circumspection in making oral observation, in its judgment on a plea by the Election Commission complaining against the harsh oral observation made against it by the Madras high court in the course of the hearing of a plea seeking enforcing of Covid protocol in the just concluded assembly polls and the countering. The observations in question were made on April 26, 2021. The Election Commission was aggrieved with the oral observation attributing responsibility on the poll panel for surge in Covid cases and saying why it should not “be put up for murder charges”.

Assuaging the Election Commission, the court said, “The remarks of the high court were harsh. The metaphor is inappropriate. The high court — if indeed it did make the oral observations which have been alluded to — did not seek to attribute culpability for the Covid19 pandemic in the country to the EC. What instead it would have intended to do was to urge the EC to ensure stricter compliance of Covid-19 related protocols during elections.”

Referring to the live streaming of the top court proceedings in USA, UK, International Criminal Court and recently by the Gujarat High Court, Justice Chandrachud speaking for the bench said, “It would be retrograde for this court to promote the rule of law and access to justice on one hand, and shield the daily operations of the high courts and this court from the media in all its forms, by gagging the reporting of proceedings, on the other.”