Lekha G
The Supreme Court held that real-time reporting of Court room proceedings in social media is not a cause of apprehension but a virtual extension of the concept of Open Court.
The Judgment was a result of a plea made by Election Commission of India (ECI) to restrain the media from reporting oral remarks made by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
The prayer of ECI concentrated on two fundamental rights – Open Court proceedings and fundamental right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.
The Bench acknowledged that the High Court’s remarks were harsh but it may have been a manifestation of anguish at the increasing number of Covid cases and said that such remarks do not form a part of the judicial record.
A Division Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah made significant observations while rejecting the prayer made by the Election Commission of India.
The Bench observed that, “With the advent of technology, we are seeing reporting proliferate through social media forums which provide real-time updates to a much wider audience. As we have discussed in the previous section, this is an extension of the freedom of speech and expression that the media possesses. This constitutes a virtual extension of the Open Court. This phenomenon is not a cause of apprehension, but a celebration of our constitutional ethos which bolsters the integrity of the judiciary by focusing attention on its functions”.
The Court further said that the Constitutional Authorities must accept the new reality rather than complain about it.
The Judgment also referred to the fact that Courts in many foreign countries are live streaming their proceedings and even the Gujarat High Court had recently live-streamed its hearing in You tube.
“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.