~ Prachi Mehta
This research explores the multifaceted relationship between media trials and administration
of justice. Focusing on a recent Supreme Court directive1
to address biased reporting and the
subsequent request for guidelines, the study investigates the diverse impact of media trials on
judicial decision-making. Through a comprehensive analysis, it studies legal, ethical, and
societal dimensions, highlighting the crucial need for balance between the right to information
and the protection of the accused and victim’s rights.
The legal aspect evaluates the court’s resolve on biased reporting, considering the fundamental
right to speech and expression and the right to privacy of the accused and the victim. Ethical
dimensions centre on the Chief Justice’s call for heightened journalistic standards, safeguarding
privacy rights, and upholding the presumption of innocence of the accused. Societal
implications highlight the impact of media trial on forming public opinion.
This study argues that striking a balance between the right to information and safeguarding
individual rights is crucial for upholding the integrity of the judicial process within democratic
principles. In essence, it provides a comprehensive perspective to the ongoing discourse and
policy development concerning the impact of media on India’s judicial system.
Keywords
Judiciary, media trials, freedom of speech and expression, fair trial, right to privacy, right to
information
1
Satya Prakash, Media trial: Supreme Court directs MHA to draft manual for police briefing on criminal cases in
3 months, THE TRIBUNE (2023), https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/police-briefing-should-not-result-in-
media-trial-says-supreme-court-directs-mha-to-prepare-comprehensive-manual-544013.
Introduction
The recent action taken by the Supreme Court to tackle biased reporting in India is a response
to the apprehensions surrounding media trials. Led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, this
directive, originating from a 2017 mandate, aims to establish regulations for police briefings
during criminal cases to protect the rights of both the accused and the victim. In the face of
ongoing media trials, the court, committed to finding a comprehensive solution, invites input
and guidance from top police officials and the National Human Rights Commission. This
initiative sets the groundwork for a more in-depth examination of the impact of media trials,
underscoring the court’s dedication to ensuring fairness and justice in the legal process.
Media holds immense importance in a democracy, yet its role in media trials is a delicate
balance. While it serves as a vital source of information, media trials underscore the need for
responsible reporting. In numerous instances, we’ve observed the media conducting
simultaneous trials of individuals or cases, particularly of high-profile cases involving actors,
politicians, or public figures and forms public opinion. These parallel media trials have far-
reaching effects on various facets of society and legal systems.
A delicate equilibrium needs to be upheld, ensuring that the right to privacy for the accused is
not compromised while still exercising one’s right to freedom of speech and expression.
Safeguarding the accused’s privacy is essential for fair legal proceedings and preserving the
presumption of innocence. Simultaneously, the right to freedom of speech and expression is
fundamental for an enlightened society. Achieving this balance requires responsible
journalism, taking into account the potential consequences of media reporting on ongoing
investigations and the lives of those implicated. Respecting the rights of both the accused and
the public is vital for ensuring a legal process that is fair, transparent, and just.
Research Methodology
In this descriptive paper, we’re digging deep into the legal, ethical, and societal impact of media
trials on judicial decision-making using a mix of primary and secondary sources. Primary
sources, like case laws and law commission reports, give us the basics. Meanwhile, secondary
sources such as newspapers, journals, and websites add more angles to the picture. We’re
exploring the complexities surrounding the topic by pulling info from both types of sources.
The goal is to provide a thorough overview of how media trials impact the legal system, ethics,
and society as a whole.
What is meant by Media Trial?
“Media trial,” a debatable term in media activism, describes when news turns legal cases into
dramatic entertainment, blurring the line between justice and sensationalism. This happens
especially with the widespread growth and development of print and electronic media channels.
In such instances, the media extensively covers the case, acting akin to an investigative body.
It essentially becomes a parallel trial conducted by the media before a court judgment, often
depicting under-trial individuals, especially celebrities or those involved in serious crimes, as
already guilty. While constitutional democracies inherently value an independent judiciary and
a free press, the concept of media trials not only challenges the fairness of legal proceedings
but also shapes public perceptions. It serves as a reminder that the power wielded by the media
comes with a responsibility, impacting real lives and the foundational presumption of
innocence until proven guilty.
Legal Implications
In the context of India, where citizens are enjoy a spectrum of fundamental rights, it is not
uncommon for some of these rights to clash. However, when it comes to a media trial, there
are two conflicting rights in particular: Article 192
, the right to free speech and expression
including freedom of press, crucial for the functioning of a democracy, and the right to a fair
trial, a cornerstone of principles of natural justice. Both rights carry equal importance and is
imperative, however, to ensure that one right does not infringe upon the other.
While the right to a fair trial may not be expressly designated as a fundamental right, its
significance remains undiminished. Legal safeguards to uphold this crucial right are embedded
within the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and are also outlined in Articles 1293
and 2154
of the
2
INDIA CONST. art 19.
3
INDIA CONST. art 129.
4
INDIA CONST. art 215.
Indian Constitution. These provisions outline the Contempt Jurisdiction, granting authority to
the Supreme Court and High Court, respectively, to punish contempt of their authority.
Additionally, media trials have the potential to introduce prejudice and bias, which may
influence the opinions of potential jurors and impede the accused’s right to a fair trial. In certain
jurisdictions, an excess of pre-trial publicity might be grounds for changing the trial’s venue or
even declaring a mistrial. The publicity generated by media trials can also impact the behaviour
of witnesses, affecting their willingness to come forward and testify. This influence is subject
to legal scrutiny, particularly if it obstructs evidence gathering or distorts witness testimony.
The Law Commission in its 200th report titled “Trial by Media: Free Speech versus Fair Trial
Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971)5
,” proposed a
legislation to restrict media reporting that could prejudice the rights of the accused. This
proposed legal framework aims to curb the potential negative impact of media trials, ensuring
a more equitable and unbiased judicial process from the moment of arrest through investigation
and trial phases. It reflects the ongoing efforts to harmonize the competing rights, fostering a
legal environment that upholds the principles of justice and fairness while acknowledging the
evolving role of media in contemporary society.
Ethical Dimensions
Media trials pose significant ethical considerations that can impact judicial proceedings.
Firstly, the problem of biased reporting by media outlets raises apprehensions about its
potential impact on the court of public opinion. When media coverage sensationalizes or
cherry-picks facts, it has the potential to mold public opinions, thereby jeopardizing the
impartiality of the judicial process. This situation poses a challenge to the ethical responsibility
of the media to engage in reporting that is both responsible and objective.
Secondly, the privacy rights of individuals involved in legal cases are a paramount ethical
concern. Media trials often lead to the public exposure of personal details, potentially infringing
on the right to privacy for both the accused and the victims. Ethically, there’s a subtle balance
between the public’s right to information and the protection of the dignity and privacy of those
5 200th Law Commission of India Report, Trial by Media: Free Speech Vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure
(amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971), 46 (2006), available at:
https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/rep200.pdf
involved in legal proceedings. In India, although the right to privacy is not explicitly outlined
as a distinct fundamental right, it has obtained constitutional acknowledgment through an
innovative interpretation of the right to life under Article 216
and the right to freedom of
movement under Article 19(1)(d)7
.
8
Furthermore, media trials have the potential to undermine the presumption of innocence, a
fundamental principle in legal ethics. Portraying an accused individual as guilty before a court
verdict contradicts the core tenet that everyone is considered innocent until proven otherwise.
This can result in unwarranted harm to one’s reputation and jeopardize the accused’s right to a
fair trial.
In certain instances, the personal details of even the victim are openly revealed on television
and in newspapers. For instance, as seen in the Kathua Rape case9
, the media disclosed the
identity of the minor victim, leading the court to restrict media coverage in accordance with
the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Such actions can negatively
impact the victim’s life.
Additionally, the ethical responsibility of journalists to report truthfully and avoid
sensationalism is crucial. Selective quoting, misrepresentation, or the exaggeration of facts can
distort the public’s understanding of legal issues, creating ethical concerns about the accuracy
and integrity of media coverage.
In conclusion, the ethical considerations of media trials on judicial proceedings involve
maintaining impartiality, safeguarding privacy rights, upholding the presumption of innocence,
and adhering to truthful reporting. Striking a balance between the media’s role as an informer
and the ethical standards required in legal matters is essential for preserving the integrity of
both journalism and the judicial system.
Societal Implications
Media is considered the fourth pillar of democracy. In the contemporary media landscape, the
emphasis is placed on sensationalism, reflecting the current reality of the industry. Media
6
INDIA CONST. art 21.
7
INDIA CONST. art 19, cl 1, sub cl 4.
8 K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
9 Courts on its Own Motion v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8719
outlets prioritize stories that are deemed attention-grabbing or sensational, with a primary focus
on content that can garner high viewership and boost their show ratings (TRP). The concern
lies more in what is perceived as commercially viable news, rather than a dedication to
objective reporting or information dissemination.
The continuous impact of the media shapes societal perspectives, as individuals often formulate
opinions based on what they see, hear, or read through various platforms. In a diverse country
like India, where people hold a wide range of perspectives, media trials play a significant role
in influencing and further shaping the collective judgments of the population.
A ‘trial by media’ has complex and wide-ranging social effects. News has the potential to
influence the minds of viewers, and its impact can either be positive or negative. On the one
hand, it functions as a tool for public education, giving light to important topics and drawing
attention to flaws in the legal system. This may encourage a feeling of responsibility and make
citizens more informed. On the other hand, this also gives the public the opportunity to become
the judge of guilt and innocence instead of waiting for the court’s verdict.
Therefore, the concept of ‘trial by media’ acts as a double-edged sword which may increase
openness and hold organisations responsible, but can also pose serious moral concerns about
justice and the right to a fair trial of the accused.
Moreover, when the media excessively covers a trial, it can influence the court’s decision-
making process. People form opinions early on, and even witnesses may alter their statements
based on the news coverage. Judges and lawyers might feel compelled to align with popular
sentiments, risking the fairness of decisions. The media’s influence can distort facts, potentially
leading to appeals and retrials. Jury selection may also be impacted, introducing biases. Media
pressure can create public expectations about the court’s decision, potentially swaying the
outcome. Therefore, responsible journalism is crucial in covering judicial proceedings, striking
a delicate balance between freedom of the press and the rights of individuals involved in legal
processes.
Media Trial Case Laws
- Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar10, 2020 (Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death Case)
10 Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 625.
In this case, the Bombay High Court asserted that engaging in a media trial disrupts the
administration of justice and has the potential to impede investigations. The court, specifically
addressing the print and electronic media coverage following the demise of actor Sushant Singh
Rajput, declared such actions as constituting criminal contempt.
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni also
emphasized that, during the coverage of a suicide case, media outlets should avoid
reconstructing crime scenes, conducting interviews with potential witnesses, leaking sensitive
and confidential information, and insinuating that the individual was of weak character. The
comprehensive 253-page judgment outlines guidelines issued by the court regarding the
reporting of incidents involving death by suicide.11
- Nupur Talwar (Dr.) v. State of U.P.12, 2017 (Aarushi Talwar Murder Case)
In the Arushi Talwar Murder Case in 2008, the CBI accused Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur
Talwar of killing their daughter and the housekeeper due to sudden provocation. However, the
evidence was weak, and there was no sign of the housekeeper’s blood in Arushi’s room. Despite
this, the media, with its speculative reporting, influenced public opinion, turning the focus from
seeking justice for Arushi to blaming her parents. The investigation was mishandled, leading
to the Talwars’ conviction, later overturned by the Allahabad High Court in 2017. The media’s
sensationalized coverage shaped public perception, highlighting the problem of media trials in
India, where public opinion can be swayed by sensational reporting rather than the facts
presented in court. - Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)13, 2017 (Nirbhaya Rape Case)
Media coverage played a significant role in the Nirbhaya gang rape case of 2012. The news
brought attention to the horrific crime, leading to widespread public anger and protests
demanding quick justice. The constant reporting pressured the police and the legal system to
11 Sonam Saigal, Sushant Rajput case: media trial impacts investigation, says HC, THE HINDU, Jan. 18, 2021,
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/sushant-case-media-trial-can-affect-probe-says-
hc/article33600567.ece (last visited Jan 16, 2024).
12 Nupur Talwar (Dr.) v. State of U.P., 2017 SCC OnLine All 2222
13 Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1
act swiftly in the investigation and trial. The media brought attention to the victim’s story,
leading to discussions on violence against women and the call for legal changes.
However, the extensive coverage raised concerns about its potential impact on the trial’s
fairness. The intense emotions fueled by media coverage might have influenced the judges’
decisions. Moreover, the case sparked debates on essential legal reforms to tackle issues related
to sexual assault.
The Nirbhaya case illustrates the dual role of media trials: as a catalyst for justice and societal
change, but also as a potential source of challenges to maintaining a fair legal process.
- Air India Urination Case (2023)
In a case where a man was accused of urinating on an Air India flight, the court criticized a
news channel for prioritizing content to boost television ratings (TRP). Justices KM Joseph
and BV Nagarathna expressed reservations about the derogatory language and defamation
directed at the accused, highlighting the importance of treating individuals with dignity. The
court emphasized the need to balance media popularity with fundamental rights and privacy,
suggesting that sensationalism in the media may sometimes disregard these crucial
considerations. - Barun Chandra Thakur v. CBI14, 2018 (Pradyuman Thakur Case)
The media trial in the Pradyuman Thakur case had severe consequences for the accused.
Initially charging the bus conductor with the murder, the media declared him guilty before any
judicial trial, leading to his defamation and job loss. Despite being later found innocent, the
damage to his reputation and career was irreparable. The media’s premature judgment
influenced public opinion, hindering the conductor’s ability to find legal representation.
Subsequently, the case was transferred to the CBI, revealing a different suspect, a sixteen-year-
old student from the same school. The media’s speculative reporting and irresponsible
declarations had a detrimental impact on the accused’s life, highlighting the need for more
14 Barun Chandra Thakur v. CBI, (2018) 12 SCC 119
responsible journalism and the potential dangers of media trials in influencing legal
proceedings and public perception.
Recommendations and Future Direction
To reshape the course of media trials, key recommendations and future directions can enhance
responsible journalism, ethical standards, and the delicate balance between media freedom and
individual rights. Media organizations should institute explicit ethical guidelines for legal case
reporting, coupled with ongoing training for journalists to ensure nuanced and responsible
coverage. Having an independent authority, like a media ombudsman, can ensure that media
companies follow these rules and address any mistakes promptly.
It’s also crucial to educate the public on how to critically evaluate news. Teaching people to
distinguish between reliable news and sensationalized stories empowers them to be smarter
consumers of media. Collaborating with legal experts is essential to ensure fair and accurate
reporting. When errors occur, media outlets should correct them transparently and quickly.
Reforming laws regarding what can be said about individuals in the news is important. We
need legal frameworks that balance media freedom with individual rights. Oversight groups
that advocate for the public play a vital role in holding media accountable. Diversifying media
ownership ensures a variety of perspectives.
Global platforms for sharing best practices can help journalists and media companies learn
from each other. Establishing direct communication channels between the media and the public
fosters transparency and builds trust. These measures collectively aim to promote responsible,
accountable, and ethical conduct within the media industry. By creating an environment where
the media disseminates information responsibly, these steps contribute to an informed public,
a fair legal system, and the preservation of fundamental journalistic principles in the digital
age.
Conclusion
Media is often seen as a crucial part of democracy, like the news and information source that
keeps people informed about what’s happening in the world. Ideally, it has the power to bring
about positive changes and improvements when it sticks to its job of providing accurate and
fair news.
However, in recent times, there has been a noticeable change in how the media operates. Instead
of being a reliable source of information, it sometimes takes on a more controversial role. This
shift is marked by a move away from its traditional responsibilities toward a more sensational
and reputation-damaging approach.
The media has the potential to influence public opinion and shed light on important issues. But
when it prioritizes quick news over accuracy and fairness, it can have serious consequences.
We’ve seen cases where people’s reputations were unfairly damaged, and their careers put at
risk.
The examination of media trials’ influence on judicial decision-making underscores a complex
interplay with legal, ethical, and societal dimensions. Legally, there’s a need for strong
frameworks to ensure fair trials, uphold contempt of court standards, and protect judicial
independence. Ethically, media outlets play a crucial role in responsible reporting, avoiding
sensationalism that could harm the fairness of legal proceedings. Legal professionals involved
in media trials also face ethical dilemmas as their actions can significantly affect how justice
is administered.
While the media can still be a force for good and contribute to an informed society, it needs to
get back to the basics of responsible journalism. This means sticking to ethical standards,
providing accurate information, and avoiding sensationalism. The ongoing discussion about
media responsibility and its impact on people’s lives emphasizes the need for a reassessment
of its role within the democratic framework.