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
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