What the Court predominantly did in this Judgment was to reiterate the principles of Open Court, Judicial Restraint and Free Press. Usually, a case like this could have been dismissed in limine since the EC was seeking the relief that the media should be allowed to report only what forms the record of court proceedings and nothing else such as oral remarks. I feel that there is a need to understand that Media cannot be seen in abstract terms. It is comprised of the citizens of India. These citizens may talk with each other as they wish to. It could be done on social media or in person or any other platform. Today’s media is not the one that used to exist 30 years ago. Every citizen who is on social media may be considered to be a part of the Media today. Facts in Brief It was alleged that the Madras High Court while hearing a matter in relation to maintenance of Covid Protocols in Polling Booths in April 2021, had orally observed that “the EC is ‘the institution that is singularly responsible for the second wave of COVID-19’ and that the EC ‘should be put up for murder charges.’ These remarks were widely circulated in the media and the Election Commission (in short, “EC”) sought a direction that the media may be allowed to report only the proceedings that are on record and not oral remarks. It was further prayed that the Police may be restrained from registering any Murder Case in relation to the oral observations made by the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court did not consider grant of such relief and the EC approached the Supreme Court seeking relief that media reporting of only what forms a part of the judicial record before the Madras High Court and not the oral observations of the judges, may be done and no coercive action may be taken against it in respect of a Criminal Complaint lodged against it at Kolkata. Observations of the Court 1. If an FIR has been lodged in Kolkata, then there are other remedies that could be resorted to under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 such as seeking quashing under Section 482 and directly coming to the Supreme Court is misconceived. 2. The Open Court Proceedings ensure that information regarding judicial process is available in public domain and subject to public scrutiny, as the “citizens have a right to know about what transpires in the course of judicial proceedings.” 3. The exceptions to Open Court Proceedings are matters that involve right to privacy of an individual and fair in trial such as sexual assault case etc. but apart from it, “public scrutiny of the court process remains a vital principle for the functioning of democracy.” 4. The case of Express Newspaper (P) Limited v. Union of India, 1959 SCR 12, was cited to explain the mandate of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India that provides for right to freedom of speech and expression. This case explained that Press Freedom is of two types: - a. Freedom From – “A free press is free from compulsions from whatever source, governmental or social, external or internal.”b. Freedom For – “A free press is free for the expression of opinion in all its phases. It is free for the achievement of those goals of press service on which its own ideals and the requirements of the community combine, and which existing techniques make possible.” 5. In the present case, the Court acknowledged that internet has refashioned and revolutionized the means through which information is relayed and the world is adopting to technology at a pace “which is often difficult to catalogue.” Hence, preventing new forms of media from reporting on the Courts would not be prudent. The Court cited the example of England wherein the British Court had observed that media may report on court proceedings using text-based communications (including Twitter) without making an Application to the Court. Various case-laws were also cited explaining that the Courts too must become tech-savvy and accept the new reality. Interestingly, it was also observed th