The Court was hearing a plea filed by the Election Commission of India over the oral remarks made by the Madras HC wherein it said EC officers must be charged for murder and that they are singularly responsible for the second wave of coronavirus in the country.
The Supreme Court on Monday told the Election Commission that the media can’t be stopped from reporting oral remarks of judges and that the remarks made by the Madras High Court must be taken in the right spirit. It also added that the discussions in the court are of public interest and that the people are entitled to know how the judicial process is unfolding in the Court through the dialogue between the bar and the bench.
Justice Chandrachud: What is happening in the court of law is also of concern to the citizens. What is happening, whether there is application of mind, how it fosters justice, is all of concern to the citizens. #SupremeCourt #ElectionCommissionOfIndia #ECI @ECISVEEP
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) May 3, 2021
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah was hearing a plea filed by the Election Commission of India over the oral remarks made by the Madras HC wherein it said EC officers must be charged for murder and that they are singularly responsible for the second wave of coronavirus in the country. The EC in its plea also requested to stop media from reporting oral remarks of judges, something that the SC strongly objected to.
“We cannot say that the media cannot report the contents of the discussions in a court of law. Discussions in a court of law are of equal public interest, and I would put it on the same pedestal as the final order. Discussion in the court is a dialogue between bar and bench. The unfolding of the debate in the court of law is equally important and the media has a duty to report. It’s not only our judgments that are significant” Justice DY Chandrachud observed, as per LiveLaw. He also termed this appeal of the ECas ‘far-fetched’
Talking specifically about the remarks, Justice MR Shah said that strong observations are made often out of anger or frustration, and sometimes can work as a “bitter pill”. Justice Chandrachud, speaking for himself, said that he wouldn’t have made such a remark.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Election Commission, said that the poll body was “pained” by the observations of the Madras High Court.
“Most of the judges in judiciary is conscious, but there are judges who say a lot of things which is not related to the case. There is no dialogue; its just a conclusion that we are murderers,” said Dwivedi.