Chief Election Commissioner of India v. M.R. Vijaya Bhaskar & Others (2021) - Case Study

Law

Chief Election Commissioner of India v. M.R. Vijaya Bhaskar & Others (2021) is a very important discourse of the relation of power between the judiciary and constitutional bodies in particular in the face of the pandemic of the COVID. It became a dispute because Hon’ble Madras High court made oral remarks that held Election Commission responsible for the second wave of COVID 19 for failing to implement health guidelines during state elections. Though not officially recorded, the comments were widely reported in the media and the Election Commission has asked the Supreme Court's highest chief justice for relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. Judicial restraint, the scope of judicial overreach and the role of media reporting on court proceedings are all important issues raised by the case. Inherent in Article 19(1)(a) and the importance of the press in democratic society, Supreme Court emphasized the press’ role but scrutinized whether court’s oral observations could be reported as official statements. It also highlighted the need to curb measured judicial comments, if they could affect the public perception of constitutional people. The verdict suggests that the balance between the judicial observations and the autonomy of other institutions should be maintained and warns of judicial discretion that has to be exercised with caution. Additionally, the judgment takes a swipe at the bigger idea of judicial overreach, which occurs when the court makes remarks beyond the scope of the case. While the Supreme Court agreed the judiciary with restrain, it did not allow the High Court’s observations to interfere and instead accentuated the judiciary's independence and the need for constitutional decorum. In the end, this means that this landmark case finally emphasizes once again but failed in upholding democratic principles, the delicate balance of the judiciary, executive, and the media. It reminds us of the importance of responsible judicial discourse and the press in allowing the judiciary to be transparent without distorting judge’s remarks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.