The Case of Chief Election Commissioner of India v MR Vijaya Bhaskar (2021)

In the present case, the judges on the Madras High Court panel criticized the election commission and held them accountable for the second wave. The election commission approached the Honorable court for guidance on how to prevent the media from disseminating those very identical statements.

chief election commissioner of india v mr vijaya Bhaskar Case Facts

• In order to guarantee adherence to the covid19 protocol  in the Tamil Nadu Karur Legislative Assembly constituency, the AIADMK candidate, who is also the district secretary, has filed an application under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution with the Madras High Court.
• On April 16, 2021, an AIADMK candidate spoke on behalf of the Election Commission and requested that adequate action be taken to protect the workers’ health and safety at the counting location in light of the growing number of corona cases. In light of the Election Commission’s lack of response, the 135 Karur Legislative Assembly requested an order on May 2, 2021, to ensure a fair vote count and take action in accordance with the covid19 protocol.
• The case was heard by a two-judge Madras High Court bench on April 26, 2021, which was made up of Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamurthi and Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee.
• The judges’ remarks and declarations during the hearing infuriated the Election Commission. The Election Commission “should be tried for murder,” the petitioner stated, adding that the judge declared that the Election Commission was the only organization accountable for the second wave of COVID-19.
• On April 30, 2021, the Madras High Court reopened the case to review the actions taken by the ECB to adhere to the covid19 protocol.
• This command is used to close certain programs. The ECI, offended by the ruling, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court as the complaint was not considered on its merits and the oral remarks from the prior hearing were accepted.
• Despite being made orally and not being recorded by the Madras Court ruling, the prior statement was extensively shared via print, electronic, and social media.

chief election commissioner of india v mr vijaya Bhaskar Issues

• Is recording journalists’ statements made during a hearing a proper code of conduct?
• The court’s exercise of moderation. If so, is it necessary in specific situations? In this case, the court rulings against the election commission of india (ECI) left it displeased and tarnished its reputation.

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

• The attorney argued that there was no evidence or material on file to support the statements and observations made by the high court judges.
• Furthermore, the judges did not provide the election commission with a chance to defend itself. The media extensively covered these comments, which damaged the electoral commission’s reputation. Furthermore, the attorney contended that issues relevant to elections and their conduct are outside the purview of judicial scrutiny. He declared that the State is in charge of enforcing rules and regulations.
• It was further maintained that even a data study would show that the country’s increase in COVID situations was not significantly related to elections. The electoral commission, the counsel argued, had set rules to be adhered to throughout elections and limited the breadth of political campaigns. The Madras High Court’s oral remarks and observations caused undue harm to the electoral commission.

Respondent:

• In opposition to the submissions, the advocate argued that the Election Commission has extensive powers in a state during election seasons, including the ability to remove or suspend district magistrates, police officers, the Director-General of Police, and even the use of paramilitary forces.
• Additionally, the electoral commission was in charge of carrying out COVID-19 regulations and safety precautions while voting.

chief election commissioner of india v mr vijaya Bhaskar Judgment

• The Supreme Court stated that the removal issue is moot since oral remarks made during any court proceeding are never included into the decision or verdict.
• The court did agree that the Madras High Court justices had made some harsh remarks. It stated that judges should use acceptable language while passing rulings or giving oral observations in public courts and should refrain from making such “off-the-cuff remark” remarks.
• The electoral commission’s attempt to prohibit the media from publishing any oral statements delivered by judges was rejected by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
• The judges further pointed out that information about court proceedings should be made public and thus available to the general public in order to uphold the concept of an open court.
• The court also used Lokmanya Tilak’s sedition case as an illustration of how print media reported on court cases and trials throughout the British Raj. The judges recommended that the Constitutional Authorities accept the new circumstances rather than voicing their complaints.
• The court recognized the High Courts for their outstanding work throughout the COVID-19 crisis.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf