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

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the freedom of media to report the oral observations and discussions made by judges and lawyers during a court proceeding.

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah held that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) extends to reporting judicial proceedings as well(Case :Election Commission of India v MR Vijaya Bhaskar).

The bench was delivering its judgment in a petition filed by the Election Commission of India seeking to restrain media from reporting oral remarks made by judges, after the Madras High Court orally said that the ECI "should probably be booked for murder" for being "singularly responsible for COVID second wave" by allowing election rallies.

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.

Concept of Open Court requires that information relating to court proceedings must be available in public domain

The Supreme Court first discussed how the ECI's prayer will affect the concept of open courts.

Courts must be open both in the physical and metaphorical sense. Except for in-camera proceedings in an exceptional category of cases,such as cases involving child sexual abuse or matrimonial proceedings bearing on matters of marital privacy, the Supreme Court said that our legal system is founded on the principle that open access to courts is essential to safeguard valuable constitutional freedoms.

"The concept of an open court requires that information relating to a court proceeding must be available in the public domain. Citizens have a right to know about what transpires in the course of judicial proceedings", the 31-page judgment authored by Justice DY Chandrachud stated.

"Arguments addressed before the court, the response of opposing counsel and issues raised by the court are matters on which citizens have a legitimate right to be informed. An open court proceeding ensures that the judicial process is subject to public scrutiny. Public scrutiny is crucial to maintaining transparency and accountability.Transparency in the functioning of democratic institutions is crucial to establish the public's faith in them", the judgment said.

An open court system ensures that judges act in accordance with law and with probity. Public discussion and criticism may work as a restraint on the conduct of a judge.

Open Court serves educational purposes as well

The Supreme Court also said that the cases before the courts are vital sources of public information about the activities of the legislature and the executive. An open court serves an educational purpose as well. The court becomes a platform for citizens to know how the practical application of the law impacts upon their rights.

In this connection, the judgment referred to how the widespread reportage on Lokmanya Balgangadhar Tilak's first trial for sedition was seminal in highlighting the variance in procedural laws and rights denied to Indian undertrials.

"Court proceedings in colonial India, especially sedition trials, were also sites of political contestation where colonial brutality and indignity were laid bare", the judgment noted.

"Post-independence, matters of seminal constitutional importance have witnessed widespread reportage in newspapers and magazines-which did not merely report on the pronouncement of verdicts, but also the quirks of the counsel and judges. These tales have now passed down as the legacy of our profession and also provide useful context for our study of the law", the Court added.

Freedom of speech and expression extends to reporting proceedings in judicial institutions as well

"In this backdrop, it would be retrograde for this Court to promote the rule of law and access to justice on one hand, and shield the daily operations of the High Courts and this Court from the media in all its forms, by gagging the reporting of proceedings, on the other", the Court said.