*The Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs M.R. Vijayabhasker & Ors*
*Forum – Supreme Court of India*
*Date-6th May 2021*
*Sub-Freedom of Speech and expression, Importance of Open Court hearings.*

In a case which is unique on its own deals with certain oral remarks made by *Chief Justice of Madras High Court Justice Sanjib Banerjee **in a matter relating to Election and against the said oral remark , Election Commission filed a SLP before apex court for disparaging these remarks. The Apex Court noting Courts must be open both in the physical and metaphorical sense except in in-camera proceedings in sensitive cases. *Citizens have a right to know about what transpires in the course of judicial proceedings. **The dialogue in a court indicates the manner in which a judicial proceeding is structured. Oral arguments are postulated on an open exchange of ideas. It is through such an exchange that legal arguments are tested and analyzed. Arguments addressed before the court, the response of opposing counsel and issues raised by the court are matters on which citizens have a legitimate right to be informed. An open court proceeding ensures that the judicial process is subject to public scrutiny. Public scrutiny is crucial to maintaining transparency and accountability. Transparency in the functioning of democratic institutions is crucial to establish the public‘s faith in them. *The court also quoted from the 1908 judgement of Balgangadhar Tilak **when tilak said ‘*In spite of the verdict of the Jury I maintain that I am innocent. There are higher Powers that rule the destiny of men and nations and it may be the will of Providence that the cause which I represent may prosper more by my suffering than by my remaining free. **Finally, quoting the live streaming of courts proceedings in UK, USA and now even in Gujarat, the court ended with saying Language is an important instrument of a judicial process which is sensitive to constitutional values. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos. Bereft of its understated balance, language risks losing its symbolism as a protector of human dignity. All that needs to be clarified is that the oral observations during the course of the hearing have passed with the moment and do not constitute a part of the record.

This judgement makes an interesting reading and highlights the zeal of the highest court to follow the policy of openness not only for courts but for all decision making authorities. This judgement can be used in any litigation.

Ramesh Patodia
06-05-2021