Can’t restrain media, judges, SC tells EC

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 SUPREME COURT

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to put any fetters on judges’ remarks or their reportage by the media, telling the Election Commission of India (ECI) that “media is a very important and powerful watchdog of the judicial processes” while the high court must get “complete freedom” to decide issues before them.

A bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and MR Shah termed as “far-fetched” ECI’s plea before the Madras high court to restrain media from reporting oral observations of the judges that the poll body was singularly responsible for a second wave in the country and that its officials should probably be tried on murder charges for allowing political parties to hold massive rallies without following Covid-19 norms.

“In today’s time, we cannot say that media won’t report contents of discussion in a court and only orders. Since the discussion is of equal public importance, we will put it on the same pedestal like our orders. There is a dialogue between the court and the lawyers and when they are reported, people get to know about the judicial process. The unfolding of the debate in the court of law is equally important and media has a duty to report. It is not only our judgements that are significant but the dialogue

also is,” justice Chandrachud told senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who appeared for the ECI.

On April 26, the high court made the scathing remarks against ECI during a hearing a writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu transport minister MR Vijayabhaskar seeking a direction for safety measures and fairness during counting in Karur constituency from where he is contesting. “You are the only institution that is singularly responsible for the situation today...No action against political parties taking rallies despite court orders. Your election commission officials should be put up on murder charges probably,” the high court had observed.

Before the Supreme Court in appeal, Dwivedi rued that the high court judges should use “temperate language” and not blame the ECI for something which was not within their domain.

“We do not take over the governance during the election. We issue directions and guidelines that the states are bound to follow. But if those responsible for adhering to the Covid guidelines are the ones to breach it, we cannot be held responsible. Now there is a non-stop coverage of how EC officials should be charged of murder. We are not seeking any order against media but we want the judges to exercise restraint,” lamented the counsel.

The bench responded that the EC’s concerns regarding the observations were taken into account and that a balance had to be struck but their plea before the high court against the media was not proper.

“What is happening in the court is also of concerns to the citizens. What is happening; whether there is an application of mind; the dialogue between the bar and the bench; how it fosters justice; these are all of concern for the citizens. Their reportage instills a sense of confidence among the public about what has transpired in the court and how the decision was made. It was too far-fetched on your part to ask a constitutional court to restrain media,” remarked the bench.

Asking the ECI to take the observations by the high court in the right spirit, justice Shah told Dwivedi: “Judges use harsh words sometime because of anguish; sometime out of frustration and sometime because of anger after seeing what has been happening around them. They are also human beings. It is also in the larger public interest what they said. And you can see the result. Your subsequent decisions improved the situation. You restricted election rally with more than 500 persons that you had not done earlier. Victory processions were prohibited too.”

Dwivedi, however, maintained that it was not appropriate for the high court judges to say that a high constitutional body like the ECI should be charged with murder and that they had serious objections to it.

But the bench reminded the ECI that the high courts were also a constitutional body and that the Supreme Court will not demoralise the high court judges by issuing any kind of restraint on their process of judicial determination.

“We don’t want to demoralise the high courts. They are vital part of this institutions. They are the ultimate protector of fundamental rights because of their access to public. We have to protect the sanctity of high courts. Our chief justices and judges should feel free to have to a dialogue. We cannot restrain them. We also wish that media should report fully what is happening in a court. It brings a sense of accountability. Media reporting would also show that we are dispensing our duties fully,” said the bench.

The court also took a grim view of the ECI’s petition before it against the high court’s observations, for it premised on the fact that the high court overlooked the constitutional stature of the poll body.

“You say in your petition that you are a constitutional body and so, a court should not have said something. Parliament is a sovereign authority. But don’t we deal with the laws passed by them? By exercising our power to examine validity of a law, we don’t take upon the powers of the parliament. It won’t be a correct reading of the Constitution to say that because EC is a constitutional body, its power should not be questioned. You have taken an extreme position in saying that,” said justice Chandrachud.

“Speaking for myself, I would not have used these words in the course of a discussion. But the issues raised in your special leave petition is much wider. We will have to pass a detailed order on the issues raised by you regarding your constitutional status. We will bring about a sense of balance in our order. You also tell your election commissioners that the intention of the high court was not to run anybody down. It was not to tarnish anybody’s image but to find out a way so that they can help public. Institutions have to be strong and vibrant for our democracy to survive,” the bench told Dwivedi.

It reserved its order on the appeal by the ECI, indicating the judgment will be delivered later this week. left for UP.