No Question Of Expunging Judges' Oral Remarks Which Are Not Part Of Judicial Record : Supreme Court In ECI Case

The Supreme Court has observed that there cannot arise a question of expunging oral remarks of judges, which are not part of judicial record.

A division bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said so while disposing a petition filed by Election Commission of India against the oral remarks made by the Madras High Court that the ECI should probably be booked for murder for allowing election rallies during the COVID pandemic.

"These oral remarks are not a part of the official judicial record, and therefore, the question of expunging them does not arise. It is trite to say that a formal opinion of a judicial institution is reflected through its judgments and orders, and not its oral observations during the hearing", the Court observed.

The Court however agreed that the remarks made by the High Court were harsh.

"The remarks of the High Court were harsh. The metaphor inappropriate", the Supreme Court observed.

However, the top court added that the High Court did not seek to attribute culpability to the ECI and was instead probably urging it to ensure stricter compliance of COVID-19 norms.

"The High Court-if indeed 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 election", the SC said.

Judges to exercise caution while making oral remarks

The Supreme Court added a word of caution for the judges to exercise restraint and balance while making "off-the-cuff remarks".

"Having said that, we must emphasize the need for judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. Language, both on the Bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety" the judgment underscored.

"A degree of caution and circumspection by the High Court would have allayed a grievance of the nature that has been urged in the present case. All that needs to be clarified is that the oral observations during the course of the hearing have passed with the moment and do not constitute a part of the record", the Court said.

The Supreme Court also rejected the prayer of ECI to stop media from reporting the oral remarks of the judges.

The Supreme Court said that the prayer of ECI to restrain media coverage of court hearings strikes at two fundamental principles guaranteed under the Constitution –open court proceedings; and the fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression.

"...in view of the above discussion, we find no substance in the prayer of the EC for restraining the media from reporting on court proceedings. This Court stands as a staunch proponent of the freedom of the media to report court proceedings. This we believe is integral to the freedom of speech and expression of those who speak, of those who wish to hear and to be heard and above all, in holding the judiciary accountable to the values which justify its existence as a constitutional institution".

Also Read : 'Citizens Have Right To Know What Transpires In Judicial Proceedings' : Supreme Court Upholds Media's Freedom To Report Court Hearings