Introduction:
It is a commonly known principle in Criminal Law that an accused must be considered innocent until proven guilty. This, however, runs contrary to the tenet through which the media seems to operate as they display various cases and formulate the public’s opinion upon the outcome, way before the competent authorities are allowed to do so. In a world of incessantly-evolving technology, media has penetrated our lives in a manner that would be unimaginable a decade ago. It shapes our opinions and views through minute and gradual influences, with mediums like newspapers, television broadcasting, and even social media. Hence, while free media was a tool to bridge the gap between the authorities and the public, and a symbol of an efficient democracy, it now threatens to destroy the principles of that very democracy.
The Vice-President of India, Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu, recently remarked:[1]
“The strength of a democracy depends upon the strength of each pillar and the way the pillars complement each other. Any shaky pillar weakens the democratic structure.”
Often referred to as the fourth pillar of democracy, the importance of media in a democratic state is undebatable. However, even Article 19 of the Constitution providing the right to freedom of speech and expression, comes with reasonable restrictions, under Section (2) and the same must be upheld while considering the rights of the free press as well.
History of Media Trials
However, varied in nature, the cases that end up getting highly publicized in the media often have a few points of commonalities. These factors include the cases involving high-profile individuals that are more prone to garnering attention, and the element of a gruesome story that allows the media to add a fictitious twist to the case and quench the audience’s thirst for entertainment. These two elements together became the reason for the controversial reception of the OJ Simpson case in the US. The entirety of the US witnessed the extremely public trial of a famous footballer, OJ Simpson where he was charged with the brutal murder of his ex-wife and her friend. Media coverage of the Simpson trial, which began in January 1995, was unlike any other. Over two thousand reporters covered the trial, and 80 miles of cable was required to allow nineteen television stations to cover the trial live to 91 percent of the American viewing audience. “When the verdict was finally read on October 3, 1995, some 142 million people listened or watched. It seemed the nation stood still, divided along racial lines as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. During and after the trial, over eighty books were published about the event by everyone involved in the Simpson case.”
A similar instance in India was the Arushi Talwar murder case of 2013. Recently, journalist Prerna Lidhoo writes about the public portrayal of the 2008 murder as follows:
“The story had everything to have that kind of an impact on a child – a victim, a villain, a perfect murder motive, intense background music, explicit graphics, and godly narration – the kind of stuff ideal Friday movie nights were made of. Except that it was coming from a mainstream news channel. To be fair to them, they did put a disclaimer saying it was a ‘creative reconstruction’ for representative purposes only.”[2]
This statement succinctly sums up the tumultuous reporting of a heinous crime with the least amount of sensitivity. The murder trial of a fourteen-year-old girl, which was closely followed by the whole country, had not even concluded before the media trials had deemed the parents guilty of the crime. This is one of the many instances of journalists overstepping their jurisdiction and interfering with the working of the judiciary in India.
Constitutionality of Media Trials
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “trial” means a formal examination of evidence by a judge, typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings. Under the Indian Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) gives its citizens the inalienable fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, and at the same time, in extension provides immunity to the media to bring the relevant information to the masses. The Supreme Court of India has reiterated on various instances that the ‘right to know’ that forms the basis of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, encompasses the ‘right to freedom of press’. On the other hand, with the same authority, the Constitution provides an accused the right to a free and fair trial under Article 21, and hence, the two become quite contradictory when considering the issue of media trials. Article 21 also extends to the right to legal assistance, which is often obstructed as when media insinuates an accused as being guilty, legal advisors are often deterred from taking up their case. For an instance, when eminent lawyer Ram Jethmalani decided to defend Manu Sharma, a prime accused in a murder case, he was subject to public derision. A senior editor of a television news channel CNN-IBN called the decision to represent Sharma an attempt to “defend the indefensible”. This was only one example of the media-instigated campaign against the accused. [3]
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 states that if through their publication, a journalist hampers the impartiality of the court proceedings and thus obstructs the ‘fair trial’ they may be held liable for contempt of court.
In Saibal Kumar v. B K Sen,[4] the Supreme Court noted:
“No doubt, it would be mischievous for a newspaper to systematically conduct an independent investigation into a crime for which a man has been arrested and to publish the results of the investigation. This is because trials by newspapers, when a trial by one of the regular tribunals of the country is going on, must be prevented. The basis for this view is that such action on the part of a newspaper tends to interfere with the course of justice, whether the investigation tends to prejudice the accused or the prosecution.”
While this view of most Indian Justices is not endorsed by those of England, cases from the United States seem to be in agreement regarding the influence of media upon judicial proceedings. In John D. Pennekamp vs. State of Florida[5], it was observed,
“No Judge fit to be one is likely to be influenced consciously, except by what he sees or hears in court and by what is judicially appropriate for his deliberations. However, Judges are also human and we know better than did our forebears how powerful is the pull of the unconscious and how treacherous the rational process—and since Judges, however stalwart, are human, the delicate task of administering justice ought not to be made unduly difficult by irresponsible print.”
In 2006, the Contempt of Court (Amendment) Bill was introduced, and regarding the same, The Law Commission of India released a report that discussed the adverse effects of media upon the judicial proceedings and further outlined certain recommendations to be implemented to amend the 1971 Act[6]. A summary of the same is as follows:
- To enlarge the meaning of ‘publication’, as given in the act, to encompass both print and electronic media.
- To monitor the publications made during the course of the court proceedings, especially publications made against the accused. This is in conformity with the decision in A.K.Gopalan v. Noordeen (1969)[7]
- Lower Courts do not retain the authority to punish for contempt or breach of Section 3 of the Act and can only refer the matter to a higher authority.
- Amend provisions to employ ‘suppression orders’ and postponement orders’ regarding the publication of any articles regarding the court proceedings. Such articles must be of the nature to prejudice the public’s opinion regarding the proceedings, for any such provisions to be used.
Conclusion
Hence, what is evident in recent years is a trend of the media constantly getting influenced by political alliances while portraying a narrative that ultimately polarises the audience’s views to one end or another. On the other hand, the kind of news that is televised and highlighted and the manner in which the same are put forth is often determined by factors like viewership and commercial profits. This not only harms the quality of news that is being brought to the public, but also severely deters the principles of free speech as credible media is the cornerstone of any democratic society. In today’s world of social media and instantaneous methods of communication, there is an ever-growing need to remain active and alert, regarding the events of the country that concern us and while such vigilance is important in a democratic state, there must be mechanisms in place to ensure that cases involving sensitive and controversial issues are barred from public opinion until fully resolved. While it is non-negotiable that a democratic state such as ours retains the right to free press, certain regulatory measures must be put in place. Such restrictive measures must be in line with the rights provided under Article 19 and not curtail the very essence of freedom of speech granted by the Constitution.
References:
[1] Press Information Bureau, Government of India (8 December 2019), https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=195595#:~:text=Mentioning%20the%20four%20pillars%20of,way%20pillars%20complement%20each%20other, accessed 20 October 2021
[2] Prerna Lidhoo, https://thewire.in/media/rhea-chakraborty-sushant-singh-rajput-aarushi-talwar-media-trial
[3] Hampering Judicial Independence: Media Trials in India, Its History and a Fresh Perspective, Ishita Singh and Harsh Bhargava, July 5 2021, https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/media-trials-india/#_ftn1, accessed on 20 October 2021
[4] (1961) 3 SCR 460
[5] (1946) 328 US 331
[6]LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/rep200.pdf
[7] 1969(2) SCC 734
0 Comments