Election Commission of India vs. Mr.

Vijayabhaskar

INTRODUCTION

Amidst the rising Covid-19 cases Madras HC observed that Election Commission didn’t take
sufficient safety measures and also condemned their actions by allowing parties to carry on
with political rallies. the Division Bench made certain remarks which were then widely
circulated in the electronic media. Grieved by the stinging remarks, the EC went on to plead
before the Supreme Court wherein the Election Commission wanted to seek directions from
the Hon'ble court to restrain the media from reporting the remarks passed by the Madras High
Court judges.

ESSENTIAL DETAILS OF THE CASE

Case No:

LL 2021 SC 244

Court:

Supreme Court of India

Bench:

Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah

Appellant:

Chief Election Commission of India

Respondent:

M. R Vijayabhaskar and others

Date of Judgment:

6th May 2021

Current Status:

Valid

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On February 26th, 2021, the Election Commission (EC) announced general elections
to the Legislative Assemblies of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Assam, and
Puducherry. As for the State of Tamil Nadu, the polling was scheduled for 6th April
2021, and the counting of votes on 2nd May 2021.
2. ON 12th March 2021 a letter was sent to all the presidents and general secretaries of
all National and State political parties for Covid-19 related instructions.
3. When EC observed that there were safety protocols regarding spread of Covid -19 so
they decided to put a ban on the all the rallies, public meetings street dramas between
7 pm to 10 am.
4. Continuous Contravention of these protocols led to filling of Writ petition under
Article 226 of Indian Constitution before the Division Bench of Madras High Court
who was also a candidate of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam AIADMK for the 135- Karur Legislative Assembly Constituency.
5. M.R. Vijayabhaskar, the respondent, had also sent a representation to the EC on 16th
April 2021 for taking reasonably sufficient precautions and measures to ensure the
safety and health of officers in the counting booths.
6. When no response was received, the respondent approached the High Court in order
to seek a direction ensuring fair counting of votes on 2nd May 2021 by taking
effective steps and arrangements in accordance with protocols.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether the media should be restrained from reporting oral remarks made during
judicial proceedings?

JUDGEMENT ISSUED

The Court heard the petition and passed an order that:

 Though the polling was mostly peaceful, the EC failed to ensure the adherence of
the protocols by the political parties during the campaigns and rallies.

 Despite repeated orders from the court for maintaining the norms, the EC remained
silent upon the violation of the orders.

 Though the situation in the state was under control, the polling and the counting of
votes in no way should have acted like the catalyst for a further surge in the cases.
Public health is of paramount importance and it is distressing for the court that the
constitutional authorities have to be reminded regarding such a state of affairs.

 That the prevailing situation is of survival and to enjoy the rights of the democratic
republic, the citizens need to survive first.

 Further, the EC needs to maintain regular sanitization, hygienic conditions, the

mandatory wearing of masks, and adherence to the distancing norms with
consultations from the State Health Secretary and the Director of Public Health.
 The judgment addressed, the authority of the judge to engage in dialogue during
hearings, and the extent to which media is allowed to free flow of information to
report judicial proceedings beyond just reporting judgments. They also observed
that whether a constitutional body (EC) can set up such a plea of constitutional
status as that of immunity from judicial oversight under the various checks and
balances that are imposed.

 It was observed that the grievance of the EC was more from the oral remarks that
were made by the judges during the hearing. Those remarks received widespread
publicity in the media. An exchange of view of the Bench is an intricate part of
open and transparent judging. Thus, the duty to preserve the independence of the
judiciary and allow freedom of expression to judges, and putting some sort of
restraint and control on their powers so as to prevent using strong and scathing
language to an individual/organization are two ends of the same spectrum.

 Regarding the remarks, the Apex Court further observed that the High Court had
to face a situation as a constitutional court for ensuring the protection of the life
and liberty of citizens amidst the rising COVID-19 cases. Therein, though the
remarks made were harsh and inappropriate, they did not seek to attribute
culpability to the EC. These remarks were not a part of the official judicial record
 and that the formal opinion of the judgment is reflected through its judgments and
orders and not through its oral observations.

 Court concluded that they found no substance in the prayer of the EC for
restraining the media from reporting on court proceedings. Language is an
important instrument in the judicial process and is sensitive to constitutional
values. However, the remarks made were more in the intention to urge the EC to
ensure strict compliance of protocols and if the High Court had had a more
cautious approach after circumspection, then this grievance would not have risen.

REFRENCES –

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/murder-charges-election-commission-covid-19-grounds/
2. https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/election-commission-of-india-vs-mr-
vijayabhaskar-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-also-includes-reporting-judicial-
proceedings-by-media-5192.asp