LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

The Chief Election Commissioner of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 286Decided 6 May 2021
Civil Appeal No. 1767 of 2021
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice M.R. Shah

Background

During the 2021 Tamil Nadu assembly election, the Madras High Court heard a petition seeking COVID-19 safety arrangements for vote counting, and the judges reportedly made oral remarks that the Election Commission (EC) was "singularly responsible for the second wave of COVID-19" and "should be put up for murder charges." These comments were never part of the High Court's written order but were widely reported by the media. The EC asked the High Court to restrain media from reporting anything beyond the official record and to protect its officials from a murder complaint filed in Kolkata; when the High Court disposed of the case without ruling on these requests, the EC approached the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that courts are public institutions and that open, accurate media reporting of court proceedings, including oral exchanges during hearings, not just final orders, is protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression and is essential to judicial accountability. It refused to restrain the media from reporting oral observations, holding that such remarks are not part of the official judicial record and do not reflect a court's institutional view (which is expressed only through its judgments). At the same time, the Court cautioned judges to exercise restraint and care in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, noting that the High Court's choice of words here was "harsh" and the "metaphor inappropriate," even though it was clearly intended to press the EC toward stricter COVID-19 compliance rather than to blame it for the pandemic. The Court separately noted that the EC's request to block a criminal complaint filed in Kolkata was misconceived, since remedies for that already exist under the ordinary criminal procedure law.

Lesson Learnt

Judges' spoken remarks during a hearing are not binding pronouncements and cannot be "expunged," but courts must still speak with restraint since harsh language can be widely reported and cause real reputational harm; the media's right to report what happens inside a courtroom, not just the final written order, is a core part of the public's right to know and keeps the justice system accountable.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case