ABSTRACT
The word “Media trial” is now the most popular topic in India. A media trial is a term that refers to the media acting as judge, jury, and executioner in news situations, announcing a judgement before the court renders its decision. A media trial is often held “in tandem” with a police inquiry. The murders of Aarushi Talwar in 2008 and Sheena Bora in 2015 were both targeted by Indian media, and the death of Indian star Sushant Singh Rajput had sparked a similar debate, putting the basic human right to privacy in jeopardy once again. The media frenzy that accompanied the Aryan Khan drug trial case has once again highlighted the no-holds-barred nature of celebrity trials. The contradiction between the right to a fair trial and media freedom has been highlighted once again in the Mumbai drug case. It has also shown our ambivalence about both supporting press freedom and acknowledging the press’s ability to influence trials, both favourably and badly. This makes us ask whether the Indian constitution has granted the media an unusual right to trespass into people’s privacy in the name of “press freedom”? In this paper, we’ll examine at media trials, India’s so-called fourth estate of democracy, in relation to the right to privacy, as well as any legal checks and balances.
KEYWORD-
Media Trial, freedom of speech, press freedom, privacy, judiciary
INTRODUCTION
Assemblies, executive branches, and judiciary are considered foundations of democracy. Thomas Carlyle created the phrase fourth pillar which is Media.
A responsible press is the handmaiden of effective judicial administration[1]The press not only publishes on crimes and trials, but also on the full judicial hierarchy (police, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, courts) and the legal processes.
The media trial is the best way to quickly convey information to the public. It maintains track of worldwide sports events; It aids in public information; It anticipates the weather; So, everyone, from a billionaire to a college student, should be aware of their work style to avoid sting operations or public accountability. However, the media is often unreliable and harmful to depend on. They may distribute false information about someone to smear their reputation. Sometimes powerful individuals, like candidates, utilise the media to make false charges. Maybe only half true. However, several news sources and newspapers compete in creating cooked tales in order to capture public attention, hence raising TRPs, and so on. In recent years, the media has frequently presided over an accused’s trial, pronouncing a verdict before the court. Cases like Priyadarshini Mattoo, Jessica Lal, Nitish Katara murder, and Bijal Joshi rape may have gone unpunished if not for the media’s intervention[2]
The media, which is intended to be a mirror to the world or an eye opener, becomes a puppet in the hands of those in powers when they pay for news. So, media that used to work for, by, and of the people now work for, by, and of the sponsors. These issues may lead to media trials, where the media condemns someone before the court.
The paper aims to to determine the impact of media trials on the pursuit of justice and the amount to which press freedom should be practiced without jeopardizing individual and societal freedoms and to further investigate the impact of trial by media and its incompatibility with the right to a fair trial. It also tries to offer a broad conclusion with the possible solutions on the paper not only limits the immediate implications of policing during the pandemic but also covers the long-term effects by providing valuable recommendations for and after the crisis has passed. The research is mostly focused on India, although references to other nations are included when appropriate.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present research paper employs a doctrinal approach to ascertain the facts, circumstances, and reasons pertinent to the research issue. The methodology used is mostly based on secondary sources. The study is conducted via the use of secondary materials such as books, journals, newspaper articles, internet sources, research papers, and legislation that pertain to the subject of the study. Analytical Methodology is used in the suggested study. In order to get to a conclusion about the study, the researcher studied a number of statutory statutes as well as the Law Commission Report of India on the issue.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Durga Das Basu, “Shorter Constitution of India”, Lexis Nexis, Haryana.
The author explores in detail the “freedom of expression” guaranteed by the Indian Constitution in his book. Additionally, he considers “press freedom,” which stems from “freedom of speech and expression.” Additionally, the author discusses the causes that contribute to constraints on “press freedom” and the arbitrary restrictions on “press freedom.” He also addresses the matter of impeding the “administration of justice.” These aspects of press freedom are critical for the researcher’s ability to do good research on the topic of the study.
D. S. Chopra and Ram Jethmalani, “Cases and Materials on Media Law”, Thomas Reuters, New Delhi.
The book’s authors have attempted to present the pertinent legislative requirements and judicial rulings. They spoke about a variety of situations regarding press freedom and the proper limitations on that privilege. The authors also spoke about defamation and contempt of court laws, which might be used to limit journalistic freedom. A chapter in the book is dedicated solely to “trial by media,” in which many cases are examined in detail, as well as the influence of the media trial on those cases. These instances have been used by the authors to criticise journalists’ participation in such media trials. This let the researcher discover different settings involving media trials that were relevant to the study.
Juhi P. Pathak, “Introduction to Media Laws and Ethics”, Shipra Publications, New Delhi.
The book’s author covered the history of press legislation in India as well as the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The author also noted the necessity for and improvements in “press freedom,” but condemned the press for interfering with the “right to a fair trial,” “right to privacy,” and “defamation.” The book advanced viewpoints on constitutional principles, journalistic freedom, and the rule of law. This has made it easier for the researcher to comprehend the many benefits and downsides of press freedom, which aided in generating an appropriate study conclusion.
Zehra Khan, “Trial-by-Media: Derailing Judicial Process in India”, 1 MLR 91 2010.
In this essay, the author gives a short exchange of views on the constitutional issues pertaining to free expression in India. The author further analyses the immunity related to pre-trial publishing under the Contempt of Court Act of 1971, which is addressed in the study by the researcher. The author also emphasizes on inadequacy of the legal rules pertaining to journalistic behavior. The author also addresses the problem of media trial having a potential to influence the judges. The author also indicates how media trial conflicts with the fair trial. This has helped the researcher to have a comprehensive comprehension of the topic, so as to do a further study on the concerns.
Judicial Review on Media Trial
The Supreme Court has regularly held that freedom of the press is a core right guaranteed by freedom of speech and expression. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi[3] held that “Under Art.19(1)(a) freedom of speech and expression covers freedom of press, print and electronic media.”
In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras[4], the Supreme Court held that “Without political discussion, no public education is possible, which is necessary for the functioning of popular government.” In India Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India [5], Justice Venklatrana of the Supreme Court of India remarked that press freedom is important for a democratic society.
The right to disseminate one’s thoughts by word-of-mouth, writing, or audiovisual methods. In LIC v. Manubbai Shah[6], the Supreme Court reiterated this. This includes the right to publish or broadcast one’s thoughts. “Any attempt to smother, choke, or stifle this right would sound the death knell for democracy and bring in authoritarianism or dictatorship,” the Supreme Court stated.
Press freedom is inherent in freedom of speech and expression, according to the Supreme Court of India in Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Trade Officer[7]. In R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu[8], the Supreme Court decided that neither the Government nor officials had the jurisdiction to prevent printing of anything considered disparaging of them. The Supreme Court examined postponement orders in Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. v. SEBI[9] This is done to guarantee effective administration of justice and trial fairness. Another crucial argument was that even in circumstances of fair and factual reporting, there is a possibility of severe bias to linked procedures. Postponement orders also prevent contempt. This is to prevent the media from being mistreated in their search of a story. These verdicts also assist to balance conflicting public interests such as the integrity of the judicial process and the media’s right to free speech and expression. In Satish Bhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra[10], the Supreme Court emphasized that if media trial is feasible, media punishment cannot be ruled out.
The Supreme Court remarked in State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi[11] that a trial by press, electronic media, or public agitation is the antithesis of the rule of law. This may result in a miscarriage of justice; hence a Judge should reject any such pressure and follow the rules of law rigorously. In a court of law, litigants have a basic right to an unbiased jury trial devoid of press dictation or popular Glamour.
In the Sheena Bohra Murder Case, the media spied on the personal life of the primary accused Indirani Mukherjee. The media investigated every area of her personal life and character. In some situations, the media has pre-judged an accused before the court has even determined.
The media trial revealed a recognized star, Fatty Arbuckle, guilty, but the Hon’ble Court declared him not guilty, but the media trial damaged his career and reputation. In the case of Arushi Talwar, the media declared her parents, Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, guilty of her murder.
According to the Law Commission’s 200th report, Trial by Media: Free Speech versus Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971), the media shall be barred from publicizing anything that might risk the rights of the accused from the moment of arrest until the investigation and trial.[12]
Former Indian Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal stated the following in November 2006:
A defendant is regarded innocent until proven guilty in court and is entitled to a fair trial. So, it’s appropriate to expect that no one prejudge or prejudice one’s case? Why should public opinion effect judges?
The Supreme Court stressed that the media and the court are different bodies with distinct duties. The other cannot and must not be utilized for its job. It was suggested that the media should only perform journalism and not act as a special court agency. The biased tone of some media coverage was also identified as an unacceptable interference with the administration of justice.[13]
Aryan Khan Case: The Media on Trial
Justice Black of the United States judiciary had once remarked: “Free speech and fair trials are two of the most cherished policies of our civilization, and it would be a trying task to choose between them.”
India is not in this scenario now. It sees vigilante media as a violation of the accused’s rights and a role in the outcome of trials. The unrestrained media bombardment in celebrity cases has frequently emphasised the uncomfortable but vital topic of media trial impact on judicial trial. Despite the lack of proof that extensive pre-trial publicity invariably leads in criminal convictions.
“If legal and logical constraints on media reporting are observed, it is not a hindrance to the judicial process,” Justice MN Venkatachaliah, former Main Justice of India and chief patron of India Legal, said. Research conducted by a California university examined the effect of extensive news coverage on court procedures. The research found that it is a judicially friendly method up to a degree. However, at a certain degree, judges begin to doubt media purpose. Our Supreme Court has also addressed the subject in a number of its decisions. It is true that hours before Aryan’s bail hearing, additional WhatsApp messages appeared purporting to show him discussing a drug-sharing arrangement with two people. Another conversation shows Aryan discussing marijuana with actress Ananya Panday. This has placed the media on the hot seat.
The reckless behaviour of a segment of the media in sub judice cases is considered as cause for worry. Ruby Ahuja, a senior lawyer at Karanjwala & Company and a member of Shah Rukh Khan’s Aryan legal team, stated: “It is improper for the media to divulge papers before to the court hearing. The media must comprehend that they are dealing with someone’s life and liberty. Media may be quite supportive, and in many circumstances, it is. However, we must recognise that the outcome of cases is determined by reasonable court judgments, and any attempt by the media to generate an expectation of a specific conclusion is incorrect. Society may anticipate a certain conclusion that the courts may not deliver. The media’s attempt to sway public opinion is not a healthy practise.”
“Media is a watchdog,” prominent journalist Alok Kumar said. Further stated, “It is the fourth of the four pillars. Responsibility is required. Let us eschew theatrics and give the facts as they are. We should present all viewpoints fairly. Notably, the media has often questioned why Aryan was refused bail. Police found cocaine at the Mundra port. It further questioned why large-scale drug traffickers are able to operate but drug users are penalised. Thus, the media has played a unique role as a watchdog.” The media maintains the right to study and expose the truth under the fundamental right to free speech. Pre-trial media attention is therefore reasonable. However, the right to privacy is a fundamental right that protects other rights. The court distinguished between trial by media and instructive media in Siddhartha Vashisht vs State NCT of Delhi[14]. The case of Sahara v. SEBI elucidates the boundary between fair commentary and appropriation as it relates to the presumption of innocent. As the barrier between public and private life becomes more blurred as a result of an uncontrolled paparazzi and when the media goes beyond in reporting on celebrity cases, accusations of character assassination are often levelled. There is also a lot of disinformation. Reporters covering ongoing cases must tread carefully. While the judges agree that biassed exposure should be avoided, they find a total ban on media coverage is unnecessary. It may significantly curtail journalistic independence. It is good for the media to self-examine. It is a self-regulating habit. But when difficulties hit the media, it’s time to reflect. This is moot if media publicity affects the judiciary. Also, media has become an entertainment medium. It strives to make news appealing. Entertainment has a following. It has high TRPs. Lesser-known news outlets are trying to capitalise on their entertainment value. A genuine narrative of a crime is not a media trial. A media trial happens when the media imposes unsubstantiated “facts” and draws conclusions. Naturally, courts are opposed to such concurrent trials. In Romila Thapar v. Union of India[15], the court stated that disclosing leaked material in ongoing investigations is also undesirable if it disadvantages the accused. The media’s primary role is also to provide objective coverage of judicial proceedings. Additionally, facts must be presented in their entirety. “The connection between the court and the media is quite sensitive,” Justice Venkatachaliah said. In certain instances, courts have objected to media coverage of court proceedings, claiming that it did not accurately depict what occurred. This does not, however, imply that the media should be prohibited from entering courts or that we should be unaware of what occurs there. The media must carry out its mission objectively and rigorously.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
Based on the information presented above, it is clear that media help is required to ensure that justice is delivered. However, if changes can be made, the media will benefit the development moves more quickly in a democratic society. Some of my thoughts have evolved as a result of my medium, whether electronic or print. While the media has the right to debate and comment on court decisions, they do not have the right or freedom to initiate a trial on pending cases. Clearly, the media had a detrimental impact rather than a favourable one. Prior to initiating the trial of a pending case, the right of the accused to a fair trial is always more essential than media freedom. The media trial obstructs the administration of justice. It becomes evident that the media’s influence had a more harmful than a good impact, The issue is not when the media exposes a flaw in a police investigation or a government servant’s failure to do their responsibilities, but when the media exceeds its lawful authority and does what it should not. The integrity of legal proceedings and the ‘right to live with dignity’ of accused and suspected are at risk.
- Perhaps the print media should focus more on “news reporting” rather than “what the public wants”; all media should stop reporting “what is public.” a public interest” rather than “what the public wants”; news channels or print media spreading false information should be punished.
- All media outlets should collaborate; a favourable environment for news sharing; media should not broadcast sensitive information as terrorists will benefit from live broadcasting of such events to learn about security agencies’ countermeasures; media should not disclose very secret material security or defence documents because it violates the Official Secrets Act (India), 1923.
- Media organisations should be publicly owned and neutral. Currently, the majority of media outlets are owned by private equity firms or astute businessmen. As a result, the media is slanted to invest in a certain media organisation in order to gain from it. The money is untraceable since these media sites are for business. As a result, public ownership of media companies is crucial. An excellent example is DD News Channel. This channel broadcast all news, without exaggerating the news or endorsing a certain political party or community.
- It is critical that the trial be conducted by the Court, not the media. The media trial is unquestionably an unwarranted intrusion into the administration of justice. Numerous cases have occurred in which the media has been criticised and accused of conducting the accused’s trial by issuing the “Verdict” based on their research prior to the Court’s decision.
- The legislature has a significant role in designing media-related legislation, ensuring that their independence is not limited.
- Fair trials and judicial systems must be upheld. With the media trial’s verdict and sentence, the use of freedom and legal boundaries has plainly been abused.
- The media should be aware of their impact on the public. So should the courts. Since the proceedings are not a sports event, the media should not be allowed unrestricted access.
- The best way to regulate the media is to use contempt of court to penalise those who break the basic code of conduct. The Supreme Court has allowed courts to utilise contempt powers against publications and media entities. The media’s freedom of speech must be allowed to jeopardise the trial. Journalism’s credibility hinges on fair reporting. The media must defend the legal system.
NAME: VIDHANSHU TYAGI
COLLEGE: NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR
COURSE: B.Sc. L.LB.(Hons)
YEAR:1ST (SEM – I)
[1] State of Maharashtra v/s Rajendrajawanmal Gandhi., (1997) 8 SCC 386
[2] http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/0158AEEE-1A16-473C-A41A-DB93A66000EB.pdf
[3] Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129
[4] Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124
[5] India Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 515
[6] LIC v. Manubbai Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637.
[7] Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Trade Officer1994 SCR (1) 682
[8] R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1995 SC 264
[9] Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI; (2012) 10 SCC 603
[10] Satish bhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra; (2009) 6 SCC 498
[11] State of Maharashtra v. RajendraJawanmal Gandhi; (1997) 8 SCC 386
[12] http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/0158AEEE-1A16-473C-A41A-DB93A66000EB.pdf
[13] R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court; (2009) 8 SCC 106
[14] Siddhartha Vashisht vs State NCT of Delhi (2010) 6 SCC 1
[15] Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 802