it explains about media trial and its impacts

1. Do Media Trials Serve Any Purpose?
SUBMITTED BY
JAYALAKSHMI V
REG NO: PH20010

2. INTRODUCTION
Media is a form of communication, which includes publishing, broadcasting and the
internet. The other ways through which the communication can be transmitted to the society
are radio, television, newspaper, etc. But in this contemporary world media has developed over
time and made the dissemination of information easy.
Media imparts a very vital role in Indian democracy and hence it is called the ‘fourth pillar’
of the democracy. It generates awareness regarding the other three pillars namely Executive,
Legislature and Judiciary. It even keeps the people informed about all the social, political and
economic activities prevailing in our country.
It is expected from the media to provide impartial and unbiased news as it plays a vital
role in shaping the opinions of the society and is competent in changing the whole viewpoint
through which people perceive various events. Therefore, it is the primary duty of media to
simply put out every minute detail rather than reaching any conclusion about any matter on
their own.

3. BRIEF HISTORY OF MEDIA TRIAL
History of strong media influence on the legal procedure goes back to the emergency of the
printing press.
The first celebrity in the 20th century to be tried by media was Roscoe Arbuckle who was
acquitted by the courts but due to media trial and media coverage lost his career and
reputation. In the midst of media trials the true essence of justice gets lost and the focus tends
to shift on the promotion of the media coverage in the public mind.
Another remarkable case is the trial of O.J. Simpson, 1995, where the media played well in
promoting the case and creating an opinion in the mind of the viewers much before the court’s
order. In the case of Stephen Downing, 2002, in Derbyshire, through a simple campaign, a local
newspaper editor reopened the case and was successful in releasing the convict after twenty-
seven years of his conviction.
Therefore, it can be easily said that the media acts as a bridge between the Judiciary and
the public as it covers all sort of good and bad aspects creating an impact on the life of an
accused.

4. WHAT IS MEDIA TRIAL
The main component of media trials is portrayal of all the events that have to be kept as
secret and then act as a helping hand in shaping the opinion in the mind of the viewers. The
media acts as a watchdog and provides us with a common platform where the people can know
about all the things happening in the society.
Thus, this only leads the whole world towards being biased against one community or a
single person. In many cases Media trials give an unfair portrayal of the accused and destroy
the career of many people, merely by the fact that they were accused, even though they have
not yet been proven guilty by the court of law.

5. EVOLUTION OF MEDIA AND FREEDOM OF PRESS IN INDIA
Indian Constitution recognizes as well as protects the freedom of media under Art.
19(1)(a) which is Right to freedom of speech. Indian media, from being completely operated by
the State to setting up by corporate who are largely seen as professionals, is generally neutral
in its coverage of the events and has passed through many phases.
The proficiency of media has improved to a great extent after liberalization. In the late
90’s many international news agencies such as CNN, Bloomberg, TV 18 network and BBC
came in Indian media market and increased the competitiveness in the segment which was
earlier covered only by Doordarshan.
This was decided by the apex court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of I & B v.
Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB)[1] that government has no monopoly on electronic
media and a citizen, under Art. 19(1)(a) has full right to telecast and broadcast to the viewers
or the listener through electronic media television and radio any significant happening or
event taking place across the globe.
[1] 1995 2 SCC 161

6. If the government wants to impose any restriction it can be only levied on the grounds
specified in Clause 2 of Article 19. Prasar Bharti, an independent governing board which was
established as an autonomous authority for the purpose of regulation of Indian media. After the
inception of Prasar Bharti media was blessed with a lot of freedom[2]. It was observed in Indian
Express Newspaper case by the Supreme Court that - The expression “freedom of the press” has
not been used in Article 19 but is comprehended in Article 19(1) (a).
‘Freedom of press’ explicitly means freedom from interference from authority which may
have the effect of interference with the content and circulation of the news simultaneously there
cannot be any interference in the name of ‘public interest’ as well. Freedom of press is the soul
of social and political communication. These reasons make it mandatory for the Judiciary to
uphold the validity of freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions which
interfere with it.[3]”
There exists a neck-to-neck competition in the field of Mass Media. The primary role of
mass media is to address economic considerations, which are perfectly obtained through
advertisement. Based on the channel’s Television Rating Points (TRPs) advertisements are aired.
[2] Prasar Bharti Act 1990 , w.e.f 23.11.1997
[3] Indian express Newspaper v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641

7.  In the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu[4], the Supreme Court of India
has clearly stated that there should be a proper balance between freedom of the press
and the right to privacy and in case any defamation has been performed it must be in
the terms of the democratic way of life laid down in the Constitution.
 In the very famous case of Delhi gang rape, in 2012 popularly known as ‘Nirbhaya
case’ the media acted as an activist and reported cases of sexual offence and
insensitively without any diligence.[5]
 The recent death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput is another instance in which the
media is trying to establish self-proclaimed justice system by labelling and making
unsubstantiated allegations on Rhea Chakraborty. The Press Council of India expressly
said that “The media is advised to refrain from giving excessive publicity to the victim,
witnesses, suspects and accused as it will amount to invasion of their privacy rights”.
[4] (1994) 6 SCC 632
[5] S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 5027-5028 of 2014

8. MEDIA TRIAL AND THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED
In many cases if a person is accused through media trials the lawyers prefer not to take
up the cases of accused. This infringes the rights of defendant to be represented by a lawyer of
his choice before the Court. This is how media trial goes against the principles of natural
justice.
 When renowned lawyer Ram Jethmalani decided to defend Manu Sharma, a prime
accused in the case of Jessica Lal murder case[6], he faced many societal objections.
 In the other case where Kamini Jaiswal, who represented SAR Geelani, a Delhi
University professor who was accused of the Parliament attack 2001, was called “an
anti- national”
 In the similarly manner Prashant Bhushan who was the counsel for Yakub Menon
was also opposed by the public at large.
Due to public reaction, opinions and outrage, the lawyer’s security comes in danger due to
which they are unable to fulfill their ethical duty to provide legal aid in criminal matters.
Therefore, it can be easily said that media trial affects the principle of natural justice.
[6] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2007

9. IS MEDIA TRIAL A CONTEMPT OF COURT?
The media trial falls within the ambit of the contempt of court and needs to be punished.
The right to a fair trial should not be influenced and affected by any sort of publications whether
in news headlines, in the newspaper or aired on the radio. But it happens mostly that the
leading and popular news channels decide to go against the ethical code.
 In Y.V. Hanumantha Rao v. K.R. Pattabhiram and Anr., it was observed that “When
litigation is pending before a Court, no one shall comment on it in such a way there is a
real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the action. Even if the person
making the comment honestly believes it to be true, still it is a contempt of Court if he
prejudices the truth before it is ascertained in the proceedings.”[7]
 In Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration) and Ors. it was held by the
Delhi High Court that after the charge sheet has been filed, if the Press revealed the
contents of the charge sheet it by itself by no stretch of imagination amounts to
interference in the administration of justice.”[8]
[7] AIR 1975 AP 30
[8] 1996 CriLJ 3944

10. IMMUNITY UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides immunity to the publications under free trials
against contempt proceedings. But if any publication interferes, obstructs or tends to obstruct
any proceeding of justice whether it is civil or criminal, constitutes the contempt of court.
In the case of Aarushi Talwar’s Murder, 2013, the media had professed who was guilty
and who was not even before the actual trial had begun. As the general public got to know her
own parents were the cause of her death, it led to mass protests and made the public go into
hysterics.[9] But the fact can’t be ignored that media press has got immunity even though the
media had gone berserk in this case.
[9] CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 293 of 2014

11. CONCLUSION- MEDIA TRIAL: A BOON OR A CURSE
India is blessed with rich tradition of fiercely independent journalism. We are aware of the
fact, that most of the big scams are busted by the press, and then followed up by the law
enforcers. The heftily paid journalist is credited for extracting that information which looked
inaccessible for the top vigilance teams of the country but that is how Sushant Singh Rajput’s
case hit the headlines. That is how we found out Rhea Chakraborty was engaged in drug
trafficking.
The media has even helped the public in prejudicing our political juncture as well. Now we
know that the Courts come under the media’s microscope, it is most likely that they will remain
there forever. A positive impact that spurred out by the media is that now more Indians are
aware of their constitutional rights than ever before.
However, there is an urgent need to liberalize the sub judice rule, applying it only in
important cases that will likely influence the trial and not to any act that might have the remote
possibility of influencing it. Another main constraint on stings and trials by media is the public
interest. If public interest is missing and either self or manipulative interests surface, the media
loses its ground and invites the rage of the court.