Media Trial and Judiciary

Media trials have become a significant phenomenon in India, where the media takes on the role of the investigator, prosecutor and judge, often influencing public perception and sometimes the judicial process itself. This phenomenon raises critical questions about the balance between freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial, judicial independence and the principles of justice.

What are Media Trials?

Media trials refer to the phenomenon where media outlets, particularly news channels and newspapers, intensely cover a legal case, often adopting the role of investigator, prosecutor and judge. This extensive coverage tends to create a public perception of the guilt or innocence of the accused even before the judiciary has delivered its verdict.

In a media trial, the lines between reporting facts and sensationalising stories often blur. The media’s portrayal can shape public opinion, leading to prejudiced views and potentially influencing the legal process. This can result in undue pressure on the judiciary, where judges may feel compelled to consider public sentiment influenced by media narratives.

Media trials can undermine the fundamental principle of a fair trial, enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. They can jeopardise the presumption of innocence, where an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty and can lead to character assassination and social ostracism based on unverified information.

While the media serves as an essential pillar of democracy by ensuring transparency and accountability, it must exercise its freedom responsibly. Ethical journalism, adherence to legal guidelines and respect for the judicial process are important to prevent media trials from compromising justice.

This can have several impacts:

1. Public Opinion and Prejudice: Media trials can shape public opinion, leading to a prejudiced view of the accused, which can influence the jury (in jurisdictions where jury trials exist) or even the judges.
2. Judicial Pressure: Judges might face indirect pressure from the media and public opinion, potentially impacting their impartiality.
3. Right to a Fair Trial: Media trials can undermine the right to a fair trial, a fundamental aspect of justice enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Historical Context of Media Trials in India

Media trials are not a new occurrence in India. They have been part of the country’s media landscape for decades, with prominent cases such as the Nanavati case in the 1950s, where the media played a substantial role in shaping public opinion. The advent of 24-hour news channels and social media has amplified this trend, making it a constant feature in high-profile cases.

The Role of Media in a Democratic Society

The media, often referred to as the fourth estate, plays a crucial role in a democratic society. It acts as a watchdog, holding the powerful accountable and providing a platform for public discourse. The freedom of the press is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this freedom is not absolute and comes with reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, public order, decency or morality.

Legal Framework Governing Media Trial and Judiciary

India lacks a specific legal framework directly addressing media trials. However, several laws and judicial pronouncements indirectly deal with the issue:

1. Contempt of Court Act, 1971: This Act defines and limits the powers of certain courts in punishing contempts of court. Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt, which includes any act that scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court.
2. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: Sections 499 and 500 deal with defamation, which can be invoked against irresponsible reporting.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: Section 327 deals with the right to open courts, but in certain cases, courts can restrict media access to ensure a fair trial.

The Essence of Judiciary

The judiciary’s primary objective is to conduct fair trials and deliver justice without external influences. This independence is important for maintaining public trust in the legal system. However, media trials, which involve the media forming and disseminating opinions on ongoing legal cases, can create public pressure that potentially affects judicial impartiality. According to Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, media trials constitute contempt of court as they interfere with the judicial process by publishing opinions on cases that are still under proceedings.

The Impact: Media Trial and Judiciary

Societal Pressure

Media trials generate immense societal pressure, complicating the task of judges to remain impartial. The portrayal of the accused in the media can influence public perception and indirectly impact judicial decisions. This societal pressure may cause judges to form preconceived notions, making it difficult to conduct an unbiased trial.

Erosion of Judicial Authority

Media trials can undermine the authority of the judiciary. In high-profile cases, such as the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, media prematurely declared the punishment for the accused, diminishing the court’s role and authority. The judicial process must be free from such external pressures to ensure decisions are based solely on legal principles and evidence.

Disruption of Justice Administration

The Constitution mandates a fair trial process for all crimes, regardless of their severity. Media interference disrupts this process, as it often goes beyond providing factual updates and ventures into speculative reporting. This disrupts the administration of justice and violates the principle of a fair trial.

Supreme Court’s Stance on Media Trial and Judiciary

The Supreme Court has consistently highlighted the detrimental effects of media trials and stressed the need for responsible journalism. Here are some notable cases:

Air India Urination Case (2023)

In this incident, allegations were made against a man for urinating on an Air India flight. The court criticised media channels for being driven by TRP ratings, emphasising that everyone has the right to dignity, which was compromised in this case.

Pradyuman Thakur Case (2017)

A seven-year-old boy was found dead and initially, a bus conductor was wrongfully accused. Media trials declared him guilty without a judicial trial, leading to severe personal and professional consequences for the conductor. This case exemplifies how media speculation can unjustly affect individuals’ lives.

Sushant Singh Rajput Case (2020)

Following the actor’s death, his girlfriend, Rhea Chakraborty, faced relentless media scrutiny and character assassination. The Bombay High Court noted that media trials interfered with the investigation and administration of justice.

Several other legal cases highlight the judiciary’s stance on media trials:

• Saibal Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. B.K. Sen and Anr (1961): The Supreme Court held that newspaper investigations during ongoing trials could interfere with the course of justice, whether prejudicing the accused or the prosecution.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court recognised that media trials could infringe on individuals’ right to privacy and cautioned the media against such violations.
• Harper Collins Publishers India vs. Sanchita Gupta @ Shilpi & Ors. (2020): The Delhi High Court stated that while discussions/publications cannot be barred, baseless speculations infringe on individuals’ reputations and must be curtailed.

Analysing Media Regulation

Regulating media entirely could threaten press freedom, leading to a controlled media system, which poses its own dangers. However, responsible journalism is important. The media must adhere to ethical standards and respect individuals’ privacy. There is a need for stricter enforcement of the Press Council guidelines and media licensing laws to ensure responsible reporting.

The judiciary and media must coexist without one interfering with the other’s functions. Eliminating TRP-driven sensationalism is essential for fostering a responsible media landscape. Particularly for India’s youth, a balanced and ethical media is vital.

Conclusion

Media trials pose a significant threat to the independence and fairness of the judiciary. While media freedom is essential, it must be balanced with responsibility and respect for the judicial process. Strict regulations and adherence to ethical standards are necessary to ensure that media coverage does not compromise the administration of justice. Only through such measures can the judiciary maintain its integrity and public trust.