MEDIA: A Guardian or A Grim Reaper of Justice?

Introduction

For democratic countries to stand upright, its four pillars (Judiciary, Executive, Legislative, and Media) should perform the functions strictly allotted to their realm. With the system of checks and balances, each organ of the state keeps other organs in their respective domains by not letting them supplant other’s jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, media is the constant spectator of governmental and social actions that succor to transparency over matters. One of the reasons behind US president Bill Clinton’s impeachment was the media’s effective management in exposing Mr. Clinton. Therefore, media is the watchdog of democracy.

Media and Freedom of Speech & Expression

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution explicitly guarantees freedom of speech and expression and impliedly guarantees freedom of the press. In Romesh Thappar V. State of Madras[1], the court stated that “freedom of speech and freedom of press lay as the foundation of democratic organizations. “It is uncontested that media plays a predominant role in accelerating the delayed justice system by putting pressure on them, and this has benefitted in many cases, like in a case, the conviction of a rapist was delayed by six years and when media took up the case the rapist was convicted within 41 days.[2]

Media Trial: Anti-Judicial

The prime function of media has been to apprise the public of their surrounding news. Still, these days media is seen deviating from its principles and is functioning based on premeditated opinions and is striving to shape the public’s perception of various aspects. Powers entrusted with media are neither absolute nor unbridled; therefore, it should not overstep its constraints. To withstand the growing competitiveness in the market and to grab more eyeballs, media has been superseding its boundaries. It has even stepped into the exclusive realm of the judiciary. This media activism is coined as ‘Trial by Media.’ Conducting trials in cases and convicting culprits are sole authorities of the judiciary where in media shall not cross their threshold and interlope with the exclusive domain of the judiciary; instead, it should respect the authority and sanctity of the judiciary. What is expected of media is to be an ‘informative media’ rather than an ‘investigative media. ‘Late Adv. Ram Jethmalani opined that media while exercising its freedom of speech and expression, must realize its limits. He also condemned media trials as a breach of law and contempt of court.

Media taking up the role of the judiciary and conducting their trials envisaging suspects or accused as convicts/guilty or non-guilty of offenses even before the commencement of judicial proceedings results in hampering of justice and lowering the reputation of persons involved. Through such acts, the media succeeds in molding the perception of the society, who then starts judging and defaming the suspect/accused. The public outcry over actor Sushant’s case itself manifests the strength of media in influencing the opinion of society. These acts affect not only the reputation of the suspects but also their privacy is interrupted as they are frequently under the scrutiny of media and the public. This way, the fundamental principle of criminal law, i.e., ‘One is considered innocent until proven guilty,’ is also neglected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that “An accused is considered an innocent is a legal assumption and should not be shattered at the very threshold by the media trial and that too when the investigation is still going on.”[3]

Media Trial: Deleterious to Fair Trial?

One of the principles of natural justice is ‘Fair Trial,’ a right guaranteed to both victim and the accused under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. For the trial to be fair, the presiding judge should not have a premeditated prejudicial mind. Joseph Goebbels once said, “If you repeat a lie over and over again, it becomes putative as truth.” Judges try to be impervious of what he/she perceives from the outside world but since judges are also humans they too can have a preconceived notion as an impact of media trials and public hysteria, which paves the way for an unfair trial. Publication of any matter which interferes or prejudices the judicial processes and judicial administration is a criminal contempt[4]. The Aarushi Talwar murder case was a sensation because the media went berserk and took the case to the extreme and found the victim’s parents as guilty even before initiating a judicial trial. Justice Kurian Joseph has said that” Trial lead by the media on impending cases amounting to contempt of court.”[5]

Inimical impacts of media trial on human’s rights

Media trials often violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by not letting the suspects lead peaceful private life as they are tagged guilty before the court passes its verdict. The victims of media trials are often defamed, maltreated, and abused in public, violating their fundamental human rights. The biggest demerit of media trial is that they may use their vast platform for biased reporting. In 2007, Ms. Uma Khurana, a government teacher and a victim of media trial, was thrashed, stripped off, and sent to Tihar Jail. She also lost her job because she was alleged to be part of a racket forcing students into prostitution by a staged sting operation conducted by Live India TV[6].

Trial by media has been a topic of debate for so long, and it is again in the headlines due to the intense participation of media in late actor Sushant Rajput’s case. It is pertinent for media to be seekers of truth, but that shouldn’t result in the abuse of freedom allotted to them and making any innocent being a scapegoat. Media personnel do not know laws and their procedures; therefore, it is unjust for media to conduct investigations on their own and to report their perceptions based on the snippets they obtained. Recently, Bombay[7] and Delhi[8] High Courts have urged the press to exercise restraint while reporting cases and not to hamper an investigation.

Peroration

Media shackled by government regulations is unhealthy for democracy, but the repercussions of continued unaccountability of media are even more detrimental. What is expected is not gagging of media, but a restrain on their vigilantism. Media’s vibrant hunt for truth and freedom provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution must not hamper the fair trial guaranteed to the accused. The 200th Report of Law Commission on Trial by Media, Free Speech and Fair Trial has recommended that journalists should be trained in certain aspects of laws relating to freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) and the restrictions which are permissible under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, human rights, the law of defamation and contempt. Thus, measures shall be taken to impede media trials from infringing the rights of citizens, and a clearer set of rights and duties shall be regulated for media personnel for handling legal issues. The courts shall be granted the power to punish those who flagrantly contempt them. Moreover, it’s the citizens who should guard the acts of government and media and condemn them when they slip out of the task allotted to them as its WE THE PEOPLE of India who are empowered to constitute and dissolve them.

By-

Kajal Rajput

Anjali Joji

[1] Romesh Thappar V. The State Of Madras 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594

[2] Santosh Kumar Singh V. State through CBI (2010) 9 SCC 747

[3]Manu Sharma V. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1

[4]Section 2 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971

[6] Court On Its Own Motion V. State 146 (2008) DLT 429

[7]Nilesh Navlakha&Anr. V. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting &Anr. (PIL)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the articles on this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by the website owner.