Chief Election Commissioner of India v. Mr. Vijay Bhaska, 6 May 2021

INTRODUCTION :

Name of the case : Chief Election Commissioner of India v. Mr. Vijay Bhaskar

Date of judgment : 6 May 2021

Judges : Justice D.Y Chandrachud, Justice M.R Shah

In this case, the Madras High Court panel of judges made a remark against the election commission and held them answerable for the second wave. The Election Commission sought the assistance of the Honorable court for supervision on how to hold back the media from communicating those very same remarks.

Greater questions surrounding media speech and expression rights, citizen access to information, and judicial accountability to the nation have indeed been raised in this appeal. It has been brought up to discuss the freedom of the media to report on both judgements and judicial proceedings, as well as the responsibility of a judge to perform court proceedings and to have discussions during a hearing.

FACTS :

In this appeal, a complicated rebalancing between the authority of two constitutional bodies has sparked larger consultations about media freedom of expression, citizen information accessibility, and the judiciary’s commitment to the country. It has been brought up to discuss the liberty of the news organizations to report on both judgements and judicial proceedings, as well as the responsibility of a judge to undertake legal actions and to have discussions during a hearing.

What are the boundaries that define judicial behavioral patterns? What concerns must courts be aware of in a time when information is constantly bubbling up? Why are the media present in a courtroom?Above all, can a constitutional body—in this particular instance, the Indian Election Commission—present the argument that its status as a constitutional body appears to give it immune function from judicial oversight in a checks and balances framework built around conventional principles?

This Special Leave Petition results from a decision made by a Division Bench of the High Court of India in Madras on April 30, 2021. In order to ensure that COVID-related rules are adhered to in the polling stations at the 135- Karur Legislative Assembly Voting base in Tamil Nadu, the High Court heard a writ petition under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench is purported to have made comments during the hearings holding the EC ultimate responsibility for the current spike in COVID-19 cases because they completely ignored to put in place the requisite COVID-19 safety precautions and proper procedure during the elections.

These oral comments made by the High Court, which the EC claims are completely baseless and disrupted the EC’s notoriety as an independent constitutional authority, are at issue.

General elections for the Legislative Assemblies of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Assam, and Puducherry were officially confirmed by the EC on February 26, 2021. The State of Tamil Nadu’s election scheduling system called for voting on April 6, 2021, and vote tallying on May 2, 2021.

The EC sent out a letter dated March 12, 2021 to the leaders and general secretaries of all national as well as state political parties in preparatory work for the elections, highlighting the significance of strict adherence to COVID-19 protocol guidelines while undertaking the elections.

During the casting a ballot phase, the EC sent the following message to political parties on April 9, 2021, complaining that their candidates were not acting in accordance by COVID-19-related rules regarding wearing masks, social distance, and other restrictions.

Additionally, it stated that the EC would take into account precluding large demonstrations and rallies if the norms continued to be broken. In the end, the EC strictly forbade rallies, large gatherings, and street performances on campaign days around 7 pm and 10 am in a notification issued 16 April 2021. On the same day, a similar letter was published, reinforcing the importance of strict adherence to all safety precautions related to COVID-19.

ISSUE :

Should news organizations be strictly forbidden from reporting oral assertions made during court proceedings?

The high court’s oral assertions made during the hearing and its inability to tackle the merits of the EC’s ancillary application have outraged the EC.

The EC recommended media coverage of what is part of the court helps to analyze before the Madras High Court in its assorted application, not the judges’ oral observations.

PROVISION INVOLVED :

Article 19(1)(A)- Guarantees Freedom of Speech & Expression.

ARGUMENTS :

PETITIONER :

The counsel argued that the high court judges’ comment threads and observations lack corroborating evidence and documentation. Additionally, the judges did not allow the election commission to take the opportunity to try and protect itself. Given the wide-ranging media coverage, these statements have damaged the election commission’s renown. The attorney further made the argument that the context of judicial process is constricted with respect to election-related issues and its undertaking. He argued that the State is in charge of upholding protocols and regulations.

It was additionally contended that even a research methodology would show that elections did not substantially contribute to the country’s increment in COVID cases. The attorney claimed that the electoral commission had set prohibitions on the scope of election campaigns and had issued regulations that must be adhered to during elections. The oral comments and empirical evidence by the Madras High Court caused the election commission to be disproportionately prejudiced.

The media should make absolutely sure that the proceedings are correctly reported, and they shouldn’t embellish them because that might cause the public to lose their confidence in the system. As a result, regulations and edicts must be written to portray how the court’s prosecutions should be reported.

RESPONDENT :

The counsel arguing against the submissions made the argument that the Electoral Commission does indeed have a wide range of powers during an election period in a State, including that of the ability to replace or suspend district magistrates, law enforcement officers, the general manager of police, and even to deploy paramilitary groups. Additionally, the electoral commission was in charge of carrying out covid communication protocol and protective measures during elections.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA :

The issue of expunging these verbal comment threads is not relevant as they do not form a component of the governmental record of the proceedings. To say that a judicial institution’s formal opinion is reflected in its pronouncements and orders, rather than in its oral observations made during the hearing, is clichéd.

Therefore, in considering the above conversation, we do not find merit in the EC’s request to prevent media coverage of judicial proceedings. This Court is an unwavering supporter of the media’s right to report on legal proceedings. This, in our opinion, is vital for guaranteeing that everyone has the freedom to speak their imaginations and express oneself, as well as to hear and be heard.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT :

The attorney for the Election Commission argued that there is no evidence or material on document to endorse the statements and comments made by the judges of the high court. The election commission was also not provided with an opportunity by the judges to try and protect itself and the actions taken to enshrine COVID-19 protocol.

As a result of the media’s wall to wall coverage of their comments, the election commission’s reputation has been irreparably damaged. These comments could make people have less faith in the electoral commission and would further bring to light its constitutional authority.

The attorney further argued that only certain aspects of a leadership contest and its conduct are eligible for review by the courts. The advocate clarified that perhaps the election commission was able to control and implement the measures required for its prevention because elections were held during COVID in very many states.

He argued that since the election commission does not assume control of the government by a State during elections, it is up to the State to enforce protocols and measures. Even those who operate in the field during elections are few in number.

It was further made the argument that even a data analysis would demonstrate that elections did not substantially contribute to the country’s increase in COVID cases. The attorney claimed that the electoral commission had limited the breadth of political campaigns by issuing regulatory requirements to be accompanied during elections.

The oral comments and findings by the Madras High Court caused the election commission to be wrongfully prejudiced. The mainstream press should make sure that the proceedings are equitably reported on and that they are not blown out of proportion in order to prevent harming the public’s trust in the judicial system.

As a direct consequence, policies and instructions must be written to portray how the court’s proceedings should be reported. The media exposure and the way the court proceedings are operated should be in alignment.

The counsel defending the defendant on caveat tried to argue that the Electoral Commission has a broad spectrum of authority during the election period in a State, including the capacity to substitute or suspend district prosecutors, police officers, the director-general of police, and even to deploy paramilitary groups to guarantee that the regulations, guidelines, or directives are accompanied. Additionally, the electoral commission was already in charge of carrying out covid protocols and safety measures during elections.

The Supreme Court pointed out that since oral statements made during court proceedings are never incorporated into the order or judgment, the issue of removal is not brought up. The court did concede that the judges of the Madras High Court had made harsh remarks.

The Apex Court has ruled that judges should exercise restraint in public courts when making such “off-the-cuff remark” declarations. It was underscored that judges should use language with judicial propriety while making oral observations or transferring judgements.

The Supreme Court turned down the election commission’s application to forbid the media from releasing any oral statements made by judges because it contravenes fundamental rights sheltered by the Indian Constitution. The judges further explained that in order to abide with the idea of open court, information pertaining to legal proceedings in a court must always be made public and thus accessible to the general public.

The court used the insurrection trial of Lokmanya Tilak as an example of how print media is covering trials and court appearances during the British Raj. The Supreme Court judges highly suggested that instead of complaining, the Constitutional Authorities embrace the newly established reality.

CONCLUSION :

A general populace court ensures that judges comply with regulations, as the Supreme Court astutely observed. The supreme court has ruled that media coverage of legal proceedings falls underneath the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as it constitutes a component of press freedom. The electoral commission has a history of performing these activities, and it ought to continue doing so.

Written by: Rimi Agarwal, Manipal University, Jaipur, an intern under Legal Vidhiya