Summary
The Court rejected the Election Commission’s request to restrict media reports to the formal judicial record and exclude oral courtroom exchanges. Open justice and freedom of expression protect reporting of proceedings, subject to recognized limitations. While describing the attributed remarks as harsh and inappropriate and urging judicial restraint, the Court held that unrecorded oral observations were not binding decisions and presented no question of expunction.
Issues
- Whether media reporting could be confined to written court orders and exclude oral observations.
- How open justice and judicial accountability relate to press freedom.
- Whether the attributed oral remarks warranted expunction or other relief.
Provisions considered
- Article 19(1)(a) and (2), Constitution of IndiaApplied freedom of expression and its constitutional limitations to reporting judicial proceedings, including oral exchanges, in furtherance of open justice. (¶¶ 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 43)
Held
- Public access and information about courtroom exchanges serve transparency, confidence and accountability. Open justice ordinarily includes the proceedings themselves, with exceptional protections such as in-camera hearings where privacy or fair trial requires them. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30)
- Press freedom extends to reporting ongoing court proceedings, including through contemporary digital media, within legitimate limits protecting the administration of justice. A general restriction confining reports to the formal record was unwarranted. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 43)
- Oral exchanges test arguments and may express tentative views; they are not judgments or binding decisions. Formal institutional opinion appears in orders and judgments, and remarks absent from the judicial record cannot be expunged from it. (¶¶ 36, 37, 42, 43)
- Judicial independence does not excuse unrestrained language. The attributed remarks were harsh and the metaphor inappropriate; judges must exercise caution, restraint and respect while conducting open dialogue. The Court did not adjudicate the legality of the Commission’s election conduct. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42)
- The request for protection concerning a Kolkata criminal complaint through these Madras proceedings was misconceived. Persons aggrieved by any FIR could pursue appropriate criminal-procedure remedies, including quashing where available. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeal disposed of; request to restrain media reporting rejected. No expunction of unrecorded oral remarks; pending applications disposed of.