ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
vs. MR. VIJAYA BHASKAR (2021)
INTRODUCTION
This is one of the landmark cases namely, the Chief Election Commissioner of India vs. Mr.
Vijayabhaskar & Ors. which is particularly based on the validity of recording of oral statements in
a legal-proceedings and the right by the media.
Greater questions surrounding media speech and expression rights, citizen access to information,
and judicial accountability to the nation have indeed been raised in this appeal. It has been brought
up to discuss the freedom of the media to report on both judgements and judicial proceedings, as
well as the responsibility of a judge to perform court proceedings and to have discussions during a
hearing.
CASE SUMMARY (FACTS)
• An AIADMK candidate from the Karur Legislative Assembly Constituency in Tamil Nadu filed a writ petition
with the Madras High Court to ensure that Covid-19 protocols were followed during polling. The petition was
accepted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
• The same individual submitted a representation to the Election Commission on April 16, 2021, requesting that
the Commission take necessary actions to ensure the safety and health of officials during the counting of votes.
• As no response was received from the Election Commission, a writ petition was filed with the High Court on
May 2, 2021. The petition sought directions for the necessary arrangements and steps to be taken as per Covid-
19 protocols to ensure fair counting of votes in the 135th Karur Legislative Assembly Constituency.
CASE SUMMARY (FACTS)
• On April 26, 2021, a two-judge division bench of the Madras High Court heard the writ petition, which was
led by Chief Justice of the Madras High Court Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.
• During the hearing, the judges made remarks suggesting that the Election Commission was solely responsible
for the second wave of Covid-19 and that the Commission should be charged with murder. Although these
remarks were not recorded in the final order, they received widespread attention in the media.
• Following this, the Election Commission filed a special leave petition with the Supreme Court of India,
alleging that the Madras High Court’s oral observations and remarks were unfair and that their miscellaneous
application was not considered on its merits.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Constitution of India:
• Article 13- Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights.
• Article 19 (1)(A) - Freedom of speech and expression
• Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty
• Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.
• Article 324 - Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election
Commission.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the media should be restrained from reporting oral remarks made during
judicial proceedings?
RELEVANCE OF THIS CASE IN THE FIELD OF LAW
• The case plays a crucial role in delineating the boundaries and interactions between free speech, judicial review,
media reporting, and the autonomous functioning of the Election Commission, thereby contributing significantly to
the jurisprudence in electoral law.
• The case has implications for media reporting during elections. It examines the extent to which media can report on
judicial proceedings and the responsibilities of the media in ensuring fair and unbiased coverage. The judgment
emphasized the need for transparency and the role of media in maintaining the integrity of elections.
• The decision underscores the judiciary's role in electoral matters, highlighting the need for courts to balance their
supervisory roles with respect for the constitutional mandate given to the ECI.
• The case addresses the balance between judicial review and free speech, especially in the context of election-related
proceedings. The Supreme Court's decision in this case underscores the importance of ensuring that judicial orders
do not unduly infringe upon the rights to free speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
A general populace court ensures that judges comply with regulations, as the Supreme Court
astutely observed. The supreme court has ruled that media coverage of legal proceedings falls
underneath the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as it constitutes a
component of press freedom. The electoral commission has a history of performing these
activities, and it ought to continue doing so.
T h a n k
yo u!
