MEDIA TRIALS VS THE JUDICIARY

ABSTRACT

Media; this word has acquired a lot of substance in today’s world and is almost a part of everyone’s daily lifestyle. Media, the fourth pillar of Indian democracy, is the main source of forming the public opinion and thus wields a lot of power as it is the messenger who is instrumental in presenting the actual happenings around the world. This very “media” becomes the sole messenger of news when a crime is committed, which racks the entire sub-continent. The supposed in-depth media analysis, based on half known facts and wild assumptions pushes people to prejudge the verdict of criminal proceedings. The judiciary, the correct way and path to justice is hampered by the media trial and people lose belief in the functioning of the former.

The author, by way of this particular paper will try and impress on the facts that what exactly are media trials and how do they hamper the judicial systems of the Indian subcontinent. By stating prior scenarios of famous media trials, the author subsequently seeks to establish the judicial response for the same. The author presents a number of ways through which the functioning and relation of the media and judiciary remains stable. The paper is a concise descriptive research on the idea of public justice and what the society deems to be fair, in a particular scenario.  

KEYWORDS: Media, Trial, Judiciary, Hamper, Crime, Messenger

INTRODUCTION

Media and Judiciary, namely the third and fourth pillars of the democracy play an instrumental role in the development of the common man. Media helps in building the opinion of the society and cultivate its behavior, whereas the Judiciary regulates and maintains the law and order in the society.

So where from exactly does the term “Media Trial” originate?

Trial, by common knowledge is a basic judicial instrument. A trial is when a case is heard before a judge in the court, with able lawyers, evidences presented and building a verdict for the same. In this “trial” , a person is not guilty until the law deems it to be and every person has a right to represented before the court of law. The case goes through various phases of discovering actual facts and examining witnesses, thus taking time to arrive at systematically analyzed facts and a legally right, balanced, verdict.

A trial by media is thus an informal trial conducted by the print and the televised media, with the public as the judge who’ll give the final verdict. Nation-wide debates are conducted on popular television news channels and wild discussions are initiated on social media platforms, where the people of the country try to come to a morally righteous conclusion, even though the means to achieve these ends may not follow the legally right procedure. The news in these scenarios is focused on creating controversial headlines and throwing questions at its panel members and spectators which will create a fuss. Various experts from different fields are called & actual witnesses and close people of the victim are interviewed across news channels; where the news anchors play the catalyst of steering the conversations and statements of the formers, to their desired agenda or way to discover the “truth”. [1]

ISSUES OCCURING DUE TO MEDIA TRIALS

A fundamental difference between judicial and media trials here is that the informal trials arrive on a conclusion by means of these panel discussions and are quick to arrive on final decisions. These trials accuse the criminal, asking the highest forms of punishment, on basis of assumptions drawn from these discussions and proclaim it as the want of the society.

Predominantly in criminal cases of rape, terrorist attacks and murders, the media is quick to jump into the scenario, dig out facts and run social media campaigns against the said accused. Media plays a highly influential role in crises like these as it controls the power to build and cultivate the public opinion on basis of the information it showcases. The media, in its quest of being truthful, courageous and answerable to the society, takes able risks revealing confidential and sensitive information to the public.

The print or the televised media are means of obtaining information by the public. The print media is said to be the watchdog of the public and its democracy. That itself signifies that the news which showcased should be presented in a manner which is impartial, so that the public has the freedom to form its own opinions. This basic nature of the media has taken a 180-degree turn, as the neutrality of the delivery of the news is lost and the tv and social media platforms focus more on increasing their viewership by conducting controversial discussions by hyping up a certain topic; thus, resulting in a biased and an overly exaggerated view of the entire situation. This in many cases is one of the major reasons of inciting communal violence as well.[2]

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The method study used in this particular research is a descriptive research method. This paper is a majorly doctrinal study. It is based on the in-depth analysis of both the center topics of the research, namely media and judiciary. Secondary Sources like articles, papers and references found both online and offline play a huge role in writing this paper. Actual cases have also been referred to, to support the analysis.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to call out the unreliability of media trials and the misinformation which subsequently spread. Emphasis is given Judicial analysis and its need in such scenarios.

HYPOTHESIS

• Media trials spread misinformation and malign public opinion.
• Judicial organs are strapped off their liberty to give decisions as they work under immense pressure and face public outrage, if not abiding by the societal view.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Various articles on the internet as secondary sources, the authors prior experiences as a spectator to these cases, discussions with fellow mates and a basic self-analysis is the root the writing of this doctrinal research paper.

METHOD

The method of research alternated between being comparative to descriptive, and the presentation of the facts and analysis depicts the same.

REGULATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF MEDIA

Our Constitution gives to every citizen the fundamental right of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and at the same time makes its use subject to the restrictions mentioned in Clause (2) thereof.

The Press Council of India has been established with the objective of preserving the freedom of the Press and of maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in the country. The Council thus is entrusted with building up a code of conduct for news agencies and journalists, to ensure the maintenance of high standards of public taste and to foster a rights and responsibilities of citizenship and to encourage the growth of a sense of responsibility and public service among all those engaged in the profession of journalism.

The Council has built up a code of conduct thus, going on the lines of the generalized notions mentioned herewith;

• Media Houses should not target a particular class or religion
• Media to not plan or plot against any person by means of conspiracy
• Media should not plagiarize other’s content or piece of work.
• Media Persons will be charged of sedition if their journalism is found to be intimidating and inflammatory against the country.
• No media house shall, willingly or unwillingly hurt or offend the religious feelings or sentiments of any community.
• Media persons cannot enforce their opinions on the public
• Respect the privacy protocol while reporting.[3]

Many more such norms are expected to be adhered to by the media  persons, so that they abide by the law they are governed under. Freedom to speech and expression in the Indian Democracy does not extend to the limit that one is free to exploit the rights they are given.

The developing pattern of Media Trials thus violate the code of conduct which should be strictly adhered to. They invade people’s privacy and many times go beyond the line of decency.[4]

ISSUES FACED BY THE JUDICIARY

The judiciary faces a lot of flak in scenarios of heinous crimes, for their slow and gradual way to justice, which goes on over many years. People lose their faith in the judiciary due to this very reason as generations pass, with people fighting for their rights. Most probably that is the reason why people find mental solace in media trials as they; riding high on the public sentiments, accuse the most plausible convict in the case and build up a such a dramatized account of the entire scenario with very few true facts (found in course of the case in the court) and give the verdict based on wild assumptions. The public takes this in as the truth and pressure builds up on the judiciary if it does not function as per the views of the society, causing violent uproars every now and then.

Judges work under immense pressure as many influential parties are involved in scenarios of high profile crimes and societal sentiments threaten them to bend to bend their decisions as per the wants of who wields the power.

The want of a fair trial to each individual is hampered because of the parallel media trials. They tarnish the image of the so-called accused who is not officially proven guilty up till then, rejecting the idea of  a free and fair trial even for the wrongdoer.

As the news agencies make up stories based on half cooked facts, it gets difficult for the investigating agencies who actual strive day and night to source the real evidences and facts of the case, to ensure a fair & balanced trial.

Media, through its increasing power to divert public opinion causes violence and unrest in people of the country, and there is seen a sudden increase in hate sloganeering and communal violences, dividing the society into various sub groups. The judiciary, who works hard to maintain the law and order amongst the diverse cultures and religions of the country to preserve the internal harmony, is hammered in such scenarios as it takes ages to build up the same unity again, which media, in rare cases though; ruins to a deplorable state.[5]

The judiciary’s right to operate as an independent governmental organ here is violated as it is pressurized to work in a certain way and loses its individuality.

WHAT CAN BE DONE FOR THE SAME?

Keeping aside of all the apparent struggles faced by the Judiciary though, it wields powers to limit the operations of the media and can come to the forefront by accusing the media of bending the societal sentiments and imposing certain reasonable restrictions to ensure public harmony. Information revealed to the media can also be done in a severely restricted manner protecting the confidentiality of the court and privacy of the individuals of the case.

Stricter restrictions can be imposed on the code of conduct of the media houses and journalists be educated on the essential nature of the press and right conduct to be practiced to respect the privacy of people. The press must also be made thoroughly aware of their rights to free speech and expression and their relation with judiciary should be strengthened in a way that both the organs function in harmony, benefitting each other’s works.

Media and Judiciary can function in a better and a positive manner, when each abides by its rules and laws, respecting the boundaries of the arena of the other.

After all said and done, people still with their unshaking belief in the judicial systems of the country, wait for the court to announce its verdict; after all of the wild theorizing and campaigns asking for justice.

FAMOUS MEDIA TRIALS IN INDIA

• The Sridevi Case

Though not listed as a media trial in famous records, media trials in this case caused enough damage to the reputation of the family members of the actress. The cause of death of the actress was found to be accidental drowning as proved by the court verdict, though media trials spun wild and insensitive murder theories.

News media channels showed wild and uncomfortable visuals of how the esteemed actress may have drowned to her death and made-up stories on even minor statements made by her family members.

The privacy of the near and dear ones of the actress was grossly disrespected and accusations were thrown at them, familial issues were cited to be the cause of the actresses’ death.

This was done over a period of several months, on the reason and account that that the deceased was a beloved actress and media seemed to give clearer answers to the public, on their quest to seek justice for her.

THE SOCIETAL THINKING AND IDEA OF PUBLIC JUSTICE

The public, themselves posing as the law givers many a times override the legality due to the misinformation by the media and due to their increasing sentiments, wanting instant and fair justice.

Public feels the facts uncovered by the media to be more authentic than the courts whose operating systems and functioning of the cases aren’t usually that transparent, and feel satisfied in the operations of the media.

Media, with its easy access and no barrier on sensitivity on its news giving, becomes the beacon of hope for the society, transferring all the justice giving abilities from the courts to the news anchors. Public feel the media to be more receptive than the courts and therefore lose patience in the slow but systematic functioning of the courts.

Media sows unnecessary  seeds of doubt in the minds of the people and who then hope for the judiciary to solve them. If not done in manner wanted by the public, cases like these aren’t even brought to the forefront as people the judiciary to biased, which is actually the other way round.

Though the public is well educated and rational in most of the scenarios the sentiment game ranks high and the society is highly susceptible to be told wrong facts to incite violence and this gullibility is thus exploited.

The right of both the public and the ones whose case it is violated herewith as even the latter constitute a part of the public and are the ones suffering on their path to justice.

SUGGESTIONS & CONLCUSION

The Judiciary of the country should opt for a more transparent and fair system of justice where everyone has the right to view the proceedings and get informed about the case. The Judiciary should have the final say in what information must be presented through the media, respecting confidentiality of the individuals of the case and their personal lives. A platform to view all the judgements in a detailed manner but in an layman language should also be made and maintained by the judicial organs.

As for the Media and stricter code of conduct should be followed and implemented and the media houses should reevaluate their moral duty to the society and not function on whims and fancies or on vested powers of some dominant individuals or groups.

For the people of the country to be more rational and search for exact actual; facts even when following the case by means of the media , by analyzing each news in depth. Blindly believing, it should be made understood, is worse for the public health and sanity of the society.

Last but never the least, media and the judiciary to be able organs of public service and representation, to not override their duties which cause a situation of disbelief in the country and to be the ideal justice givers the society still believes in.

Vaishnavi Tamaskar

ILS Law College, Pune

---

[1] Everything You Need To Know About Media Trial in India, bnblegal.com, (Last visited 11^th May 2023)

[2] Trial by Media , www.drishtiias.com, (Last visited 9^th May 2023)

[3] Let us Understand the Codes and Conduct of Media: Where does Indian Media stand? , www.ownguru.com, (Last visited 12^th May 2023)

[4] Press Council of India, www.presscouncil.nic.in, (Last visited 12^th May 2023)

[5] Trial by Media – A Threat to Our Judicial System? , www.legalservicesindia.com, (Last visited 12^th May 2023)