The media cannot be stopped from reporting any court hearing, the Supreme Court said today as the Election Commission complained about being “castigated without any evidence” on political rallies during the campaign for state elections. The media “must report fully” what happens in court, said the judges.
“The media is powerful and communicating what happens in court. Not only our judgements, but raising of questions, answers and dialogues is a concern for citizens. Media not reporting observations is far-fetched,” the Supreme Court told the Election Commission.
The Election Commission last week approached the Supreme Court against what it called “blatantly disparaging remarks” by the Madras High Court over holding polls amid the deadly second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Madras High Court on April 26 said the Election Commission “should probably be booked for murder” for not stopping political rallies for elections held in Tamil Nadu and other states amid a Covid spike. But these observations did not make it to the final order, which said “at no cost can counting become a catalyst for a further surge”.
The Election Commission’s petition before the Supreme Court says the remarks “dented the institution” and asks that the media be stopped from reporting observations.
“Without any opportunity (given) to the Election Commission or any reply being sought from officers responsible under the Disaster Management Act, we have been castigated,” the election body argued today.
The Supreme Court replied that the Election Commission is the constitutional authority to conduct elections. “We cannot in today’s time say that media will not report the contents of court hearing. Discussions taking place in the High Court have equal public interest as the final order of the court,” it said.
“Something is observed in the larger public interest. The Election Commission should treat it as a bitter pill in the right way,” said Justice MR Shah.
Justice DY Chandrachud added: “We don’t want to demoralise our High Courts. They are vital pillars of the judiciary. Sometimes a free-flowing dialogue takes place in the court and judges make observations… You cannot control how judges will conduct proceedings.”
High Court judges are at liberty to ask inconvenient questions, Justice Chandrachud asserted.
The Election Commission countered that it was “a conclusion not a dialogue” and the observations were not in the final order.
“Everything cannot be put in the order? It is a human process,” responded Justice Shah.