Supreme Court rejects Election Commission’s plea to limit court reporting by media | India News

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court docket on Monday rejected the Election Fee’s stand that the media ought to solely report court docket orders and never the scathing observations of judges throughout hearings, and stated intense, minute-to-minute reporting of court docket proceedings fostered a way of transparency and public confidence within the adjudication course of.
“Within the 1950s, the proceedings of constitutional courts had been reported by a handful of newspapers. However in at the moment’s age, the proceedings earlier than any constitutional court docket in vital issues regarding public curiosity get reported minute by minute not solely by the mainstream media and the digital media but in addition by social media. That doesn’t imply the judges ought to really feel restrained from asking uncomfortable questions in regards to the functioning of authorities, each govt and constitutional,” a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah stated.

The bench defined to the EC that judges asking inquiries to a lawyer was reflective of the distinctive dialogue technique of scrutiny adopted by Indian courts earlier than making a choice. “A lawyer is all the time within the dock and judges ask searing questions. That doesn’t imply the decide is in opposition to the lawyer or the consumer he’s representing. It’s to elicit the most effective response,” it added.
Whereas referring to the EC as an vital pillar of democracy, the bench stated, “Media is a crucial watchdog to keep up the sanctity of democracy. The dialogue technique of scrutiny in court docket proceedings, by getting reported by the media, displays real utility of thoughts (by judges) and fosters confidence within the minds of most people in regards to the system.”
Showing for the EC, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi stated, “We as attorneys welcome questions from judges. We can not say the media mustn’t report. However the judges should ask questions that are contextual and provides a chance to events earlier than making scathing remarks.”
Justice Chandrachud stated, “There are judges and judges. Some are reticent whereas some are garrulous. The observations are reflective of a decide’s particular person persona and within the adjudication of public curiosity issues, particularly when residents are below immense stress due to exponential rise in Covid circumstances, it’s certain to mirror the general public sentiment. The endeavour of the judiciary is to make sure larger public good.
“We can not say the media is not going to report the dialogue course of intrinsic to the adjudication course of in constitutional courts. In at the moment’s time, the media can’t be gagged on this method.”

Scroll to Top