6th May,2021 Supreme Court

Justices: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud & M R Shah

Article 19(1) (a) of Indian Constitution

This Judgment has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis:

1. Factual Background

B Proceedings before the Supreme Court C Legal Position & Analysis

C.1 Open Courts and Indian Judiciary

C2. Freedom of Expression of the Media

C3. Public Disclosure, Media Reporting and Judicial Accountability

C4. Freedom and constraints of judicial conduct

D Conclusion- Leave Granted

Two fundamental principles have been guaranteed under the Constitution by the Supreme Court, i.e-

1. Open Court proceedings; and
2. The fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression.

1. Open access to courts is essential to safeguard valuable constitutional freedoms- the concept of an open court requires that information relating to a court proceeding must be available in the public domain. Citizens have a right to know about what transpires in the course of judicial proceedings.

It was said that arguments addressed before the court, the response of opposing counsel and issues raised by the court are matters on which citizens have a legitimate right to be informed. An open court proceeding ensures that the judicial process is subject to public scrutiny. Public scrutiny is crucial to maintaining transparency and accountability. Transparency is crucial to establish the public’s faith in them.

1. Open court serves educational purposes as well- it was noted that court proceedings in colonial India, especially sedition trials, were also sites of political contestation where colonial brutally and indignity were laid bare.

It was further added that post-independence, matters of seminal constitutional importance have witnessed widespread reportage in newspapers and magazines- which did not merely report on the pronouncement of verdicts, but also the quirks of the counsel and judges. These tales have now passed down as the legacy of our profession and also provide useful context for our study of the law.

1. Freedom of Speech and Expression extends to reporting proceedings in judicial institutions as well- it was observed that the courts are entrusted to perform crucial functions under the law. Their work has a direct impact, not only on the rights of the citizens, but also the extent of to which citizens can exact accountability from the executive whose duty it is to enforce the law. Citizens are entitled to ensure that courts remain true to their remit to be a check on arbitrary exercises of power. The ability of citizens to do so bears a direct correlation to the seamless availability of information about what happens in a court during the course of proceedings. Therein lies the importance of freedom of the media to comment on and write about proceedings.

It was further said by the court that with the advent of technology, we are seeing reporting proliferate through social media forums which provide real-time updates to a much wider audience. As we have discussed in the previous section, this is an extension of the freedom of speech and expression that the media possesses. This constitutes a virtual extension of apprehension, but a celebration of our constitutional ethos which bolsters the integrity of the judiciary by focusing attention on its functions”.

It was said by the court that acceptance of a new reality is the surest way of adapting to it. Our public constitutional institutions must find better responses than to complain.

1. No question of expunging oral remarks which are not part of judicial record- it has been stated by the court that the remarks of the High Court were harsh. The metaphor inappropriate. The High Court if-needed it did make the oral observations which have been alluded to-did not seek to attribute culpability for the covid-19 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. All that need to be clarified is that the oral observations during the course of the hearing have been passed with the moment and do not constitute a part of the record. The EC has a track record of being an independent constitutional body which shoulders a significant burden in ensuring the sanctity of electoral democracy. We hope the matter can rest with a sense of balance which we have attempted to bring.”