Media Trial in India

Introduction                              

We live in a great nation, India and what governs our nation is our Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. Right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under art. 19(1)(a) is one of the important rights enjoyed by our citizen. Media, which is one of the influencing organizations have enough intelligence to utilize these rights. Thus, Media is considered to be the backbone of a democratic country like India. Trial by Media is one the most indescribable attempt made by the Media by declaring the accused guilty far before the verdict of the court. Hence, Media has personified itself into a “Public Court” which is popularly known as “Janta Adalat”.

Media in India

Media

Media is considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy after legislative, executive and judiciary. Television, Radio, Cinema, Newspaper, Magazine and Internet-based websites/Portals are generally categorized under Media. Media always plays a vital role in society and also have the capacity to change the whole perspective of society. The role of the Media is to keep the society inform and aware of daily important issues of the social, economic, political and cultural life so that people have a clear opinion of the events. Hence it considered being one of the most important and powerful institutions of our democratic country. Press and Media enjoy the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) guaranteed by our constitution. Though the rights are not absolute, it has reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).

Trial

• According to legal perception, Trial means an examination of the fact of the cases taken before the competent court of law to deliver justice. A Trial in a typical sense means a lawsuit that has been taken to the court of justice.
• According to black law of dictionary, Trial means “a formal judicial examination and determination of legal claims in an adversary proceeding”[1]The term Trial is also defined under the Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 as “any hearing before the court at which evidence is taken [2]”

Hence from the above terminologies, we can conclude that Media is not a competent authority of conducting a Trial.

Media Trial

With the increasing competitiveness in the market of Media, they are more emphasized on grabbing the attention of the viewers and the readers by promoting sensationalize the news. Nowadays, to get high TRPs they customarily propagandize subjective opinion and spread prejudice in the name of the news. Even there are many incidents we can see in Media where they are conducting the trial of an accused and gives their own decision even before the court passed any judgement. In the present time, Media Trial has become a very important thing in an out and their importance of Media Trial has come from very own opinion of the people that the justice which the court cannot provide or justice which will be delayed by the court will be secured by Media through Media Trial. There are certain cases such as Priyadarshini Mattoo case, Jessica Lal case, Nitish Katara case, Bijal Joshi rape case, Madhya Pradesh Vyapam Scam case and so on where Media Trial was witnessed.

Media Trial means a trial proceeded by Media through their intelligence. Currently, what we can see is that Media engaged on the separate investigation on any high-profile cases outside the court’s purview makes their assumptions or prejudice the accused before the court comes up to any judgement. They as well ignore the crucial gapes between the word “convict” and “accused”. Media Trial not only affects the reputation of the accused but also affect the verdict of the court. In ArushiTalwar’s murder case, where it was anticipated in the court and reported that maybe her father or mother was involved in her murder, they were accused and declared the murderer of her daughter by the media house, even the court under the pressure of the media declare them so. Later after 10 years, the court has proven them to be innocent.

Fair Trial V. Media Trial

In our criminal proceeding, we have a golden principle, “presumption of innocence until proven guilty” and “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” which means that accused will always assume to be innocent until it is proven by the court of law. Nobody has the authority to declare any person criminal unless and until the court declares him to be so. But many times, Media has violated these principles and proclaimed to be a judge. Every party in a court has a constitutional right of Fair Trial and this should be done by an unbiased or fair-minded tribunal which is uninfluenced by the biased media house. This trial by media or press is very inverse to the rule of law which tends to lead a misjudgment in the court. In Annual Chandra Pradhan V. Union of India, the supreme court laid down that no occasion should arise because of media trial which would lead to direct influence on the essentials of a Fair Trial and the basic principle of jurisprudence including the presumptions of the innocence of the accused unless found guilty at the end of the Trial[3]. Thus, it must be manifested that the liberty of the press or freedom of the press is always subordinate to the administration of the court. No one has power beyond the court of justice.

In the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. the State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court has held, “the Supreme Court explained that a “fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which unbiased or partial judgement for or against the accused, and the witnesses.[4]

Media Trial and The Laws

FREEDOM OF PRESS

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966[66], epitomizes the privilege to the right to speak freely of discourse, that is, “everybody will reserve the option to hold sentiments without impedance” and the “opportunity to look for, get and confer data and thoughts of different types, paying little mind to boondocks, either orally, recorded as a hard copy or in print, like craftsmanship, or through some other media of his choice.[5]“

In any case, this opportunity accompanies a rider that the activity of this correct accompanies “unique obligations and duties” and is dependent upon “the rights or notorieties of others”. The privilege to the right to speak freely of discourse and articulation has been ensured under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. Although the opportunity of the press is certifiably not an independently ensured directly in India not at all like the United States of America, the Supreme Court of India has perceived opportunity of the press under the umbrella right of the right to speak freely of discourse and articulation as visualized under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

IMMUNITY UNDER CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971:

Pending is defined under Section 3(2), sub-clause (B) of clause (a) of Explanation which lays down that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898) or any other law, where it relates to the commission of an offence when the charge sheet or challan is filed or when the court issues summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused.[6]

Certain acts like publications, similar to distributions in the media at the pre-preliminary stage, can influence the privileges of the charged for a reasonable preliminary. Such distributions may identify with past feelings of the charged, or about his general character or his supposed admissions to the police.

THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW

The Supreme Court has expounded that the fundamental principle behind the freedom of the press is people’s right to know. Elaborating, the Supreme Court opinion, “The primary function, therefore, of the press is to provide comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the country’s political, social, economic and cultural life. It has an educative and mobilizing role to play. It plays an important role in moulding public opinion”.

However, the Chief Justice of India has cited that the freedom of the press means people’s right to know the correct news, but he admitted that newspapers cannot be as simple as official gazette. It mush be little sensationalizing to attract people.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

A few researchers legitimize a ‘preliminary by-media’ by suggesting that the crowd mindset exists freely of the media which only voices the sentiments which open as of now. In a majority rules system, straightforwardness is necessary. Without a free press, we will relapse into the dull periods of the Star Chambers, when the legal procedures were led cryptically. All these ubiquitous SMS crusades and open surveys just give a stage to people in general to communicate its perspectives. It is producing open exchange concerning issues of open significance. Smothering this voice will add up to smothering majority rules system.

Effect of Media Trial in India

• Effect on Judges: – Media Trials sometimes subconsciously affect the mind of the Judges. They get influenced by the prejudice decision of the media, which creates an unseen pressure on the judges. Generally, judges were not considered as a social but nowadays, they are also participating in a social affair. Afterall judges are also human beings and also cares about their reputation and promotion. They may sometimes tend to get biased especially, in high profile cases just to be in limelight and hence comes up to the decision what the media wants. Media is also so much influencing that even the judges couldn’t stay away from it.
• Effect on Fair Trial: – In the case of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. and Ors. V. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr, the supreme court states that the media has a right to know what is happening in courts and to forward the information to the public which may enlighten the public confidence in the transparency of court proceedings. Sometimes a fair and an accurate reporting of the trial would create a substantial risk of prejudice but this does not happen in the pending trials. The postponing of order not only safeguards fairness of the trial but also prevents possible contempt by the Media[7]. Thus, media Trial also affects the Trial of the court.
• Effect on accused: – Media Trial can destructively affect the life of any person. Sometimes, prejudice of the media turns to be wrong and the court declares innocent to such person. In such a case, these people go under deep trauma, loses their dignity and cannot stand in society. Their lives became miserable and they live whole life with the tag of criminal because half of the society already believed him to be so.
• Effect on Society: – Due to high publicity in society, people get highly biased to what media delivers. They believe it to be true, thus create public pressure to the court of law. Hence people play a vital role in delivering justice.

Media Trial -Comparing analysis 

• United States of America: – According to the first Amendment of the bill of rights 1791, freedom of the press under the American constitution was imposed as an absolute right and no such reasonable restriction was subjected to it. Thus, if any media or press interfere the court of justice or prejudice to any proceeding there is no such legal action can be taken against the wrongdoers[8].
• United Kingdom: – It was laid down under section 4(2) that the court has the power to postponed any publication related to the proceeding or any part of the proceeding, as per the court. Hence, they find any substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings[9].
• Canada: – According to Section 2(b) read with Section 1 of the charter of rights, 1982 that according to Canadian law the reasonable restriction is imposed on the freedom of speech as per the prescribed law. This was included to keep a balance between two rights. One can enjoy both the rights when they are balanced.

Pros and Cons of Media Trial in India

Pros: –

1. In cases like Priyadarshini Mattoo case, Jessica Lal murder case, Bijal Joshi rape case etc. where court delayed or could not deliver justice, interference of media helped them to give justice due to their intense pressure on the judiciary.
2. The fear of being exposed in the public, and knowing the consequences of their action people are now more conscious of their deed and so rate of crime has decreased.

Cons: –

1. Nowadays, media channel dies to get TRPs rather than focusing to give national awareness. To grab the attention of the public they come up with “Masala” news because of these reasons they tend to deliver fake news to make it more interesting.
2. Trial by media tends to hamper the existence of CBI or jurisdiction. People get biased towards the media because they have more faith in the media’s investigation. Thus, it hinders the decision of the court.
3. Media tends to conclude even before the court delivers its verdict. By declaring someone as a criminal even before the court decision, it not only leads to defaming the person’s reputation but it destroys his/her social life. This can be seen in Arushi Talwar’s murder case.

Conclusion

Media as an of a democratic country like India is considered to be one of the most influencing body to the society. The prime function of media is to provide information at a large. When media does the same it is their prime duty to highlight truth and the facts before the viewers and the readers. Not only this, media as a dogwatch, keep a continuous check over the work of the Government. But media should keep its transparency because people at large have blind faith and trust in the news. But in the case of Trial by media, most of the stories are self-demonstrative stories, half-baked to give “masala” to the viewers and to gain TRPs. As a result, it not only violates the rights of the individual but also creates a massive panic in the society.

To conduct the smooth democracy the world of media should accept certain ethics or code voluntarily such as they should be fair, accurate and unbiased. If they make any error regarding any report, they must have a moral ethic to correct it and then publish. They must also take care of the public interest at the time of communication. They should not violate the code of conduct or jurisdiction of the court, and the list will go on…

Thus, media should cover report in such a way so that it does not hinder the proceeding of the court and also keep in mind that prejudice will not only affect the public opinion but also can hamper the fair trial of court.

References

1. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/media-trials-india/#:~:text=The%20Law%20Commission%20in%20its,the%20time%20of%20arrest%20to
2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=2552426
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274633662_Media_Glare_or_Media_Trial_Ethical_Dilemma_between_two_Estates_of_India_Democracy
4. http://www.rmlnlu.ac.in/notice_pdf/devesh_article.pdf
5. http://www.dlnluassam.ndl.iitkgp.ac.in/bitstream/handle/123456789/171/Arunav%20talukdar%20Diss%202018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
6. http://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S001608/P001739/M022072/LM/1504173955LEARNMORE.pdf

 [1] Justice V., “Rajkumar Trial by Media”, http://www.livelaw.in/trial-by-media/ (April 27, 2018)

[2] Section 2(7)

 [3] 1996(6) SSC 354                                                                               

 [4] (2005)2SSC (JOUR.)75

[5] International Covenant on Civil and Political rights 1966, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession 2200A(XXI) of 16th Dec.1966

[6] Acc.The Contempt of Court Act,1971

[7] Manu/De/0746/2013

[8] First amendment of the bill of right,1791 USA

[9] Contempt of Court Act, 1981