“Journalism can never be silent: that is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault.”
-Henry Anatole Grunwald
An Introduction:
The word ‘media trial’ is often used and encountered, but many of us lack an in-depth insight on what it actually means. Media trial is a term used to denote the influence of newspapers and television reporting on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt without any actual decision by the court of law. The media serves as judge, jury, and executioner.[1] The media trial usually runs concurrently with the investigation or court proceedings, as the case may be.
Considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy, the media plays a pertinent role in shaping social views, and has the potential to change global opinions. It is important to note that every citizen has the right to be informed about the issues that affect them. Unfortunately, as a powerful entity, the media often resorts to “manipulation, distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies” and feeds them to the public, causing them to form irrational judgments on a false notion of truth.
The freedom of the press is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. By virtue of this freedom, the media reports news and publishes information on the issues that are sub judice pending before the courts.[2] In some cases, the media takes a righteous stance and design their entire coverage on that issue to further that perspective. This is dangerous and creates a space conducive to miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, in high-profile cases that capture the attention of the entire nation, the media wreaks havoc on lives by constantly reporting on, investigating, and sensationalising sub-judice matters, largely disrupting judicial administration. It is a sine qua non for the Judges to be impartial in reaching a decision based on the facts and evidence presented to them. A frivolous media trial only serves to put pressure on the judiciary and infringe the rights of parties involved, often that of the accused.
Media Trial in India:
In India, criminal jurisprudence dictates that an accused is entitled to a fair trial and is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.[3] Exclusive media coverage, on the other hand, leaves no opportunity unturned to gain TRP. It all boils down to commercial gains. By violating its responsibility to report objectively, certain media houses continue to threaten due process and interfere with the right to privacy.
The media is an immensely powerful tool that moulds public perception. In recent years, media influence has grown exponentially, as seen in cases of sexual abuse, terrorism, murder, and corruption. The media activism exerts indirect control over judicial bodies in order to expedite justice, sometimes distorting the essence of a fair trial. As a result, the accused is sentenced on the basis of a pre-conceived notion.
Media Trial & Fair Trial:
Freedom of Speech and Expression is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.[4] This freedom, however, has been granted subject to certain reasonable restrictions as defined by law from time to time, rather than in an absolute sense. Reporting and publications that interfere with the administration of justice constitute criminal contempt under the Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.[5] This particular act is punishable under Section 12 of the same Act. Furthermore, under Article 19(1)(a), the media has the right to investigate, expose, or scrutinise in order to maintain constructive balance. By doing so, the media maintains its obligation to be accountable and responsible.
However, with the media’s growing involvement in matters of law and politics, media trials have become an impediment to the delivery of justice. Technology has also exacerbated the problem because of widespread media coverage and an ever-increasing number of channels and mediums.[6]
In the case of M.P. Lohia v State of West Bengal, [7]the Supreme Court castigated the media for publishing an article highlighting the merits of the case, which was based on an interview with a deceased person’s family. The facts were revealed to be biased, and they could be used in the subsequent trial. In a fair trial, it was evidence of prejudice.
There is, however, an occasional silver lining- media trials have also played a pivotal role in the delivery of justice in some infamous Indian cases.
In the Jessica Lal murder case[8], justice was delayed due to all witnesses turning hostile. The accused Manu Sharma was acquitted. The media, through the Justice for Jessica campaign, and even the news magazine Tehelka, which ran a three-month undercover operation against the three hostile witnesses, created pressure and he was consequently convicted in 2006.
In the Priyadarshini Mattoo case,[9] the trial of the accused, who was charged with the rape and murder of Priyadarshini Mattoo, was hastened by the Justice for Jessica campaign. With the help of the media, the trial and investigation were accelerated, and the accused was convicted.
In Sanjeev Nanda Case[10], Nanda was accused of a hit-and-run, and he was accused of killing six people with his car. When the media got involved, the case was deemed sub-judice. NDTV’s undercover investigation revealed that Nanda’s lawyers were bribing witnesses. The state prosecution, on the other hand, aided in the discovery of the truth.
Conversely, in the Arushi Talwar case[11], the media was found to be once again intrusive. It is clear from many high-profile cases that the public has a divided opinion. The accused is subjected to public scrutiny as a result of the media’s intervention, which violates their fundamental human rights. Their every move is scrutinised, including their personal lives and those of their acquaintances, which has nothing to do with the case or the public at large.
The Sheena Bora case highlighted this very highly contentious aspect of trial proceedings by the media. In the Nanavati case, media coverage influenced the jury and caused prejudice, affecting the final verdict. This ultimately led to the abolition of the jury system. In cases where the media interferes with witnesses, tampers with evidence, and publishes baseless and controversial articles in pending cases, justice and the right to a fair trial is jeopardised.
In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. the State of Gujarat[12], according to the Supreme Court, a fair trial is one that takes place in the presence of an unbiased judge, a just prosecutor, and a judicially calm environment. A fair trial is one in which there is no bias or prejudice against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause that is being tried.
Consequences of Media Trial on Fair Trial:
The media trial affects the judiciary when misleading reports are published and subconsciously affects the judges by forming pre-trial bias. In every way, this will result in a miscarriage of justice, unjust interference with administration, and a loss of judicial independence. The main issue with media trials is that they prejudice the minds of the judges. In the United States, it has long been assumed that media trials and publications have no effect on the jury. Despite the fact that India has abolished the jury system, it has been observed in many cases that jurors have been subconsciously influenced by the media trial. The judges are frequently under pressure to render a decision that supports the media reports.
Lord Denning, one of history’s most illustrious judges, stated, “other men might, but judges cannot ever be influenced by media reports and publicity.” However, the House of Lords disagreed with him. Justice Frankfurter went on to say, quoting Lord Denning, that “a judge cannot be influenced by hearsay statements; rather, he bases his decisions on facts and contentions.” Corrupt publications, on the other hand, may poison Judges’ minds and tempt them to render biased verdicts.
In the Manu Sharma case, the Supreme Court outlined the negative consequences of a “media trial,” stating that there was a risk of prejudice if the media exercised unrestrained and unreasonable freedom in their trial alongside judicial trials. Furthermore, excessive scrutiny in the absence of authority violates the accused’s rights. The Supreme Court also stated that if the media interferes with an impartial investigation, it would be a travesty of justice.
In Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India[13], the Supreme Court emphasised that presumption is of a legal nature and should not be ruined at the threshold by the media when the case is already in court. It would make a concession to Article 21. The preservation of such a presumption is essential for the dignity of courts and is an essential component of a free democratic country. To avoid interfering with the administration of justice, reporting on sub-judice matters must be carefully weighed and strictly fact-based coverage should be encouraged.
It is also necessary to adhere to Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court reiterated the fundamentals of the right to free speech and expression such as discussion, advocacy, and incitement[14]in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[15].
Conclusion:
To conclude, there are both positives and negatives of media trials. The downside is undeniably greater, and in such cases it is important that the media be regulated by the courts. The media should not be allowed to exercise free reign in their reporting or court proceedings. The appropriate method is to exercise contempt jurisdiction to the effect that those who violate the fundamental code of conduct must be punished. The media cannot be allowed to have unchecked liberty that will work to the detriment of the administration of justice and potentially prejudice the judicial authorities.
The media has now resorted to aggressive competition, pushing its boundaries in order to increase ratings and viewership and ultimately, revenue. In the previous century, where there was perhaps less capitalistic competition, this was not the case. The issue with the media is not one of censure; rather, the laws themselves encourage better journalism. However, the primary flaw remains that individuals higher up in the hierarchy tend to abuse the authority vested in them, often at the expense of truth and justice- thereby rendering a massive disservice to the very profession they have chosen to serve. It is pertinent to reiterate that an entirely arbitrary media often stands to disrupt the course of justice- and therefore it should be subjected to accountability at the highest levels to preserve our democratic ethos.
[1]Nikata Dass, Media trials in India: An unwritten carve-out to the right to privacy? ,IAPP (Nov. 12, 2020) https://iapp.org/news/a/media-trials-in-india-an-unwritten-carve-out-to-the-right-to-privacy/.
[2]Sanatan Deshpande & Priyank Jagawanshi, A critical analysis of media trial and its effect on Indian judiciary, 6 IJRAR 173 (2019).
[3] Id. At 174.
[4] Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139.
[5] State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310.
[6] Ms. Abhilasha Rathore & Ms. Kanika Satyan, Judicial Intervention in the Sub-judice-The emerging issues of Trial by Media, Bharati Law Review, (2015).
[7] MP Lohia v State of West Bengal Civil Appeal 219 of 2005.
[8] Manu Sharma v State of Delhi, (2010)6 SCC 1.
[9] Santosh Kumar Singh v State (2010) 9 SCC 747
[10] State v Sanjeev Nanda (2012) 8 SCC 450.
[11] Nupur Talwar v Central Bureau of Investigation and Another AIR 2012 SC 1921.
[12] Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2005) 2 SCC (Jour) 75.
[13] Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India; (1996) 6 SCC 354.
[14]Debmalya Banerjee & Aman Singh, India: Supreme Court of India On Trial By Media, (Nov. 18, 2020) https://www.mondaq.com/india/trials-appeals-compensation/1006762/supreme-court-of-india-on-trial-by-media.
[15] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India; (2015) 5 SCC 1.
YLCC would like to thank Harshima Vijaivergia for her valuable insights in this article.
