The paper discussed one of the landmark cases namely, the chief election commissioner of India vs. Mr. Vijayabhaskar & ors. which is particularly based on the validity of recording of oral statements in a legal-proceedings and the right by the media. During the proceedings, another issue emerged after the tarnishing statements made by the high court against the election commission of India which referred to the extent of judicial restraint that has to be exercised in different cases. The original case begins from filing of a petition by an AIADMK candidate to look into the covid 19 protocols and their implementation by ECI. After no such response by ECI and failure to abide by the rules, the same candidate filed another petition under Article 226 in High court. The issue at hand there was the irresponsible and careless handling of crowds during elections by the election commission of India. The major two issues as discussed above emerged during the process of proceedings. Eventually, against those destructive statements made by the concerned hight court, the ECI filed a special leave petition in the supreme court where it argued that the courts cannot tarnish the image of ECI in front of the public, it being an independent constitutional body. They also argued that recording of oral proceedings is invalid as they amount not more than just the judicial opinions by the judges shaping people’s perceptions unnecessarily. The respondents including the HC of madras and AIADMK leader on the other hand argued on the lines of the right to freedom and speech of media houses in recording oral statements and importance of transparency of proceedings to the public when the shown content is based on the public interest. The various rationale, which is further discussed in the paper was quoted by the hon’ble supreme court of India included importance of judicial restraint to some extent along with upholding of oral statements being shown as they are not a part of core judgement or something that would affect public’s perception towards the case at hand. Finally, defects in law were identified by the court by presenting several precedents as discussed to further establish a precedent for the future cases to come. The paper is finalised with the author’s brief inference on the judgement delivered and the rationale given by the apex court.