TThe Supreme Court said on Monday it could not prevent the media from reporting on the judges’ oral remarks during a hearing.

A bench led by Judge DY Chandrachud said disclosing the judges’ oral remarks was in the public interest because it provided accountability.

“What is happening in court is of concern to citizens as well. What is happening, whether there is application of the spirit, how it promotes justice, concerns all citizens, ”said Judge Chandrachud.

He added: “We don’t want to demoralize our CHs. They are an essential pillar of our judicial process. Things are often said in an open dialogue between the bar and the bench ”.

Lead lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi, for the Election Commission, argued that SC made a “CE should be booked for murder” remark, without any evidence.

“At the rallies, the situation was not that bad. We have serious objections to the observations. The High Court’s observation has led to an ongoing discussion on the electronic media that we are murderers, ”Dwivedi argued.

Read also: EC addresses SC against Madras HC’s oral remarks “should be booked for murder”; says the constitutional body cannot be embarrassed

Judge Shah responded by saying that perhaps appropriate words should have been used. “But we don’t know what spontaneously happened and why the judges said it,” Judge Shah added.

“Sometimes order after order is not implemented by the authorities. Solid observations are made based on the realities on the ground. Take the remark in a good spirit, ”Justice Shah told EC.

The Supreme Court made the remarks during the hearing of an appeal filed by the Electoral Commission against the “oral” observations of the Madras High Court saying that the EC was singularly responsible for the second wave of Covid19 and that its officers should probably be convicted of murder.

The court reserved its order to rule later this week. He said he would take the EC’s concerns into account and draft a balanced order.

The article was originally published in The booklet.