‘Madras HC remarks on EC inappropriate’

‘Madras HC remarks on EC inappropriate’

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Thursday termed the Madras high court’s “murder charge” remarks against the Election Commission “harsh” and the “metaphor inappropriate” as it walked a tightrope between praising the role of HCs during the pandemic and advising judges against making off-the cuff remarks during hearings, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.

In a 31-page judgment on the EC’s plea against the HC’s remarks, a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah achieved three objectives — assuaged the EC’s hurt, ensured that judges did not feel restrained from questioning the actions of constitutional bodies and the executive during the pandemic, and expanded the media’s right to cover court proceedings.

Can’t gag media on court matters

Moving away from a nine-year-old order over curbs on court proceedings to protect the rights of the accused, the SC on Thursday said the media had an unfettered right to report exchanges during hearings. It rejected the EC’s plea to make media publish only orders and judgments.P 8

Oral remarks not part of judicial record: Bench

Writing the judgment, Justice Chandrachud said, “The remarks of the high court were harsh. The metaphor inappropriate.”

However, it was quick to clarify that it was not blaming the HC for remarks that could have been made during the flow of dialogue process intrinsic to judicial scrutiny of actions of constitutional bodies and the executive during the pandemic.

“The HC, 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 it would have instead intended to do was to urge the EC to ensure stricter compliance of Covid-19 related protocols during elections,” the bench said.

It further clarified that oral observations by judges of superior courts during a hearing did not form part of court records and were at best meant to elicit a studied response from the authorities for reaching a just conclusion. “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,” it said.

However, the bench appeared worried about an emerging trend of judges making needless caustic observations against litigants during hearings, be it constitutional bodies, governments or individual litigants. “We must emphasise the need for judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation,” Justice Chandrachud said.

The SC also advised judges to be careful in choosing the words and the language they use and said if the Madras HC had exercised restraint, the grievance of a constitutional body against another would not have arisen. “Language, both on the bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety. Language is an important instrument of a judicial process which is sensitive to constitutional values. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos,” the bench said.

NEED FOR CAUTION