[ECI case] Internet has revolutionised court reporting; real-time court updates part of press freedom: 5 highlights from Supreme Court judgment

In the age of the internet, the media cannot be gagged from reporting on court proceedings, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday..The Court said that internet has revolutionised court reporting and Freedom of media is not only to report on orders/ judgments of the Court but also judicial proceedings.The Court made a number of observations during the hearing of the Election Commission of India (ECI) plea against certain oral observations by the Madras High Court that the commission should probably be put up for murder charges in view of the wanton abuse of COVID-19 protocol during election rallies during the recent assembly election season. The High Court had further commented that the Commission was singularly responsible for the second wave of COVID-19. .The ECI had also objected to the wide publication of these comments in the media and sought for a bar on reportage of oral court observations. This plea was dismissed today by the Supreme Court..[Breaking] Freedom of speech covers freedom to cover court proceedings: Supreme Court dismisses ECI plea against Madras HC "murder" observations.While pronouncing the judgment in this case, the Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah made several pertinent comments on the freedom of media vis-a-vis court proceedings. Highlights of the judgment include the following. .1. Freedom of Press includes freedom to report on Court proceedings."Freedom of media is not only to report the orders but also judicial proceedings," the Court said. .It added, "We say courts must be open save and except for in-camera proceedings like marital privacy, etc....Article 19 (1)(a) covers freedom of the press. Freedom of speech and expression covers freedom to cover court proceedings too.".2. Open access to Court under the Constitution."Open access to court is the cornerstone of Constitutional freedom," the Court observed..In the course of the judgment, the Court further remarked, "This is also a part of augmenting the integrity of the judiciary. With the advent of technology we are seeing reporting with real-time updates. Its a part of freedom of speech and expression of the press. It's an extension of open court.".Further, the Court remarked, "Courts have to remain true to their remit and provide checks on arbitrary exercise of power.".As such, the Bench eventually concluded:"We find no substance in prayer of ECI to restrain media from reporting court proceedings. It is essential to hold the judiciary accountable.".3. On the rise of digital reporting, live-streaming of court proceedings."News has travelled from newspaper radio and internet. Internet has revolutionized court room reporting. That should not be a good enough reason for courts to engage with evolving technology," the Court proceeded to observe..It noted that "Now people are more digital-oriented and hence look to the internet for information. Hence, it would do no good to prevent a new medium to report proceedings. Constitutional bodies will do better than complain about this.".Further, it was pointed out that, "International courts allow live streaming. Gujarat High Court has also allowed...In this backdrop, it would be retrograde for the Court to gag reporting of proceedings...".4. Oral observations of a Court part of the process of judging."The manner in which proceedings conducted in a superior court is unique to each judge. Such interaction is based on spontaneity of thought. Many times, judges play the role of a devil's advocate. Orders must reflect a application of mind," the Court noted. .It went on to observe that while oral observations may not be part of the judgment, it is part of the process of judging. In this regard, the judgment states:"... observations during hearing is not a part of the judgment but is a part of the solution and which elicits thought from the opposing counsels. If this expression is discouraged, the process of judging will be closed.".5. Need for judicial restraint from making 'off-the-cuff' remarks in open court.The Supreme Court noted that it does not wish to trample upon the independence of the lower courts, given that they are in touch with ground realities. "This Court must balance so as to not encroach the lower courts and hamper their independence. We have at one hand the Madras High Court which performs the intrinsic role exercising power under Article 226 and in touch with ground reality," the judgment stated. .All the same, the top court has urged judges against making off-the-cuff remarks in open court."Regarding remarks made by the High Court, we understand that the High Court was facing rising cases of COVID-19... remarks were harsh and metaphor improper. The High Court did not attribute culpability to the ECI for the spread of COVID-19... ...There is a need for judicial restraint for off the cuff remarks which is open for misinterpretation. Judicial language is important for constitutional ethos. The power of judicial review is so high that it forms part of the basic structure. A degree of caution and restraint on part of the High Court would have allayed these proceedings," the Supreme Court said..All the same, the Bench noted that there is no question of expungement of remarks made by the High Court in this case since oral remarks are not part of the order.