short essay on media trial

Media trials: Hindrance in the administration of Justice

Media is the fourth pillar of our democracy. Media through its immense work and the groundbreaking role has acquired that status. When the judiciary, legislature, and executive fail to look out for their citizens, free media is the one to become the voice of the masses. But, media trials are now the norm, people think whatever is shown in media is right. But, is it fair? Does it make sense or causes a hindrance in the administration of justice? Well, let’s find more.

Read Also – The doctrine of Ultra Vires (Exception and Need)

WHAT IS MEDIA TRIAL

Media Trials can be traced back to the twentieth century. The expression, however, has been introduced recently. It got its importance from the instance of Roscoe “Greasy” Arbuckle (1921) who was released by the courtroom. But, after the media announced him “liable”. he lost all his standing and eminence alongside his work. In another eminent case of O.J. Simpson (1995), the media advanced the case and profoundly impacted the spectators even over the status of the court. Clearly, media profoundly empowers or impacts the perspectives overtly.

Media trials can be described as the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law.

In R.K Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 the Supreme Court explained media trial in the following manner-

“The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a

widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. During high

publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public

hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means

that, regardless of the result of the trial, in public perception the accused is already held

guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.” Read Also – Role of Media in Democracy Contemporary Indian Society

IMPACT OF MEDIA TRIAL

A. media trial and free speech.

As per numerous judicial interpretations and precedents, Freedom of the press (article 19) is a fundamental right. The concept of a free press is an implied one.  In Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641supreme court held that the press assumes an exceptionally important standing in a democratic apparatus. The courts have obligation to maintain the freedom of the press and negate all laws and managerial activities that abbreviate that opportunity. Freedom of the press has three fundamental components. They are: 1. Freedom of access to all sources of information, 2. Freedom of publication, and 3. Freedom of circulation.

Read Also – How Will Criminal Justice Reform Impact Lawyers?

However, no right is absolute. Article (19)(2) of the Indian Constitution imposes some reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression vis-a-vis freedom of the press. With this expanded job and significance joined to the media, the requirement for its responsibility and demonstrable skill in reportage can’t be accentuated enough. In common society, no right to freedom is supreme, limitless, or unfit in all conditions. However, the opportunity of the media, similar to some other opportunity perceived under the constitution must be worked out inside sensible limits.

Read Also – Laws and Regulations for Florida Motorcyclists

b. Fair trial

Innocent until proven guilty and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are two major principles of the Indian criminal justice system. Every accused in our country has a right to a fair trial.

A fair trial involves a public hearing, independent judges, the right to counsel, the presumption of innocence, and many other factors. And, the procedures of a case with unprejudiced, free and able Judges guarantee a fair trial.

But in media trials no such procedure is advanced and rule of law gets violated. In Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India ,1996(6) SCC 354. The Supreme Court observed that “No occasion should arise for an impression that the publicity attached to these matters has tended to dilute the emphasis on the essentials of a fair trial and the basic principles of jurisprudence including the presumption of innocence of the accused unless found guilty at the end of the trial.”

Trial by media, electronic press and public opinion sabotages the very essence of rule of law. It straightaway hinders the administration of justice.

c. Right to privacy

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) defines privacy in the

following terms:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

Constitution through wider interpretation of article 21 by Supreme Court has instituted right to privacy.

Often, media houses in the role to attract public eyes do things that are off-limits. In cases with celebrities or some high profile cases, news channels broadcast private information (no consideration given to consent). Not only the accused but the victims also suffer due to excessive publicity. We ought to protect The right to privacy unless it threatens the public interest. Read Also – Top 10 rights given to the Arrested Person

d. Contempt of court

Publishing popular opinions as to the final verdict even before the verdict of the court is nothing but a direct hindrance in the administration of justice. Producing a verdict requires a huge amount of wisdom and interpreting skills only by highly qualifies individuals as sitting judges. The sheer audacity of the media persons to conduct these illegitimate trials is beyond their power. This ultra vires conduct scandalizes the function of the courts and the prevalence of the rule of law.

e. Influence on judges

Judges undoubtedly make sure not to be influenced by the media and majority opinion. But as rightly observed by Justice Frankfurter in the case of John D. Pennekamp v. State of Florida (1946) 328 US 33- “however, judges are also human and we know better than did not forbear 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.”

The media presents the case in such a way to the public that if an adjudicator passes an order against the “media decision”, the person then considered the same token as bad or one-sided. Read Also – Online Harassment Laws in India: Your Rights & Remedies

FINAL COMMENTARY

Media trial has been in action for a long time now. In cases like the Nitish Katara murder case Jessica Lal case, the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, and Bijal Joshi rape case, media activism was at par with justice. However in a very recent case Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar, 2020 (Sushant Singh Rajput Death Case)  media trial went out of control. Commentaries over the accused and the victim were brutal and defamatory. It would be suitable to label the whole scenario as a character assassination for both parties. Media channels in the race of TRP ratings forgot every ethical and professional code of conduct. Read Also – Freedom of Speech and Expression

Photographs, videos, unsolicited statements are intangible in this age of technology. Furthermore, it harms the reputation of a person for life. The thing to be remembered, the person is still not a convict before the court’s judgment. therefore, he is rightful of integrity same as any other person.

The media needs to draw a line as being a mere corporate institution or democratic pillar. It is the functioning of the judiciary to pronounce verdicts, not the media trials. It is high time our legislature recognizes this problem. However, eradication of media trial completely is not reasonable but statutory regulation of it is the demand of our Constitution. Read Also – Secrets of Online Legal Marketing in India

Try our Debt Resolution solutions today       Request a Demo

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ISSN 2581-5369

HeinOnline, MANUPATRA, Google Scholar Indexed

Trial by Media: An Overview

• Nikitha Suresh and Lucy Sara George
• Show Author Details

Nikitha Suresh

Student at Kerala Law Academy Law College, India

Lucy Sara George

• img Download Full Paper
• img Export Citation

Export citation

Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law. In recent times there have been numerous instances in which media has conducted the trial of an accused and has passed the verdict even before the court passes its judgment. The Supreme Court reiterated that the media and the judiciary are institutions inhabiting separate spheres and their functions do not overlap. One cannot and must not use the other for discharge of its functions. It was observed that media should only engage in acts of journalism and not act as a special agency for the court. The impermissibility of freedom of speech and expression amounting to interference with the administration of justice due to the prejudicial nature of certain media coverage is highlighted through this paper.

• media trial
• fourth pillar
• click-bait journalism
• miscarriage of justice

Research Paper

Information

International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 4, Issue 2, Page 267 - 272

Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright © IJLMH 2021

I. Introduction

Media is considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy, after Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Media as fourth pillar was coined by Thomas Caryle.

A responsible press is the handmaiden of effective judicial administration [1] . The press does not simply publish information about cases and trials but subjects the entire hierarchy of the administration of justice (police, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, courts), as well as the judicial processes, to public scrutiny. Free and robust reporting, criticism and debate contribute to public understanding of the rule of law, and to a better comprehension of the entire justice system. It also helps improve the quality of that system by subjecting it to the cleansing effect of exposure and public accountability. “Sunlight” as Justice Brandeis once said “is the best of disinfectants, electric light the most efficient policeman.” [2]

II. Laws governing media in india

There was regulation for Press until the British East India Company began ruling a portion of India in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey. The enactment of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 was a very significant event in the field of laws governing Media. The aforementioned Act is still in force and the same was enacted to regulate the printing press along with periodicals which contained news, further the objective of the act was to preserve copies of books and for the registration of Books.

In 1869-70, when Media played a huge rule during the Wahabi Conspiracy, Sedition was incorporated as an offence as Section 124 A in the Indian Penal Code, 1870 wherein exciting or even attempting to excite any feeling of disaffection/feeling of enmity to the Government was labelled as an offence which as of today, is punishable with imprisonment of life to which fine maybe added. In pursuant to the above, the Dramatics Performances Act, 1876 was brought into force so as keep a check on public dramatic performances which had the possibility of provoking people against the Government. When the then Government sensed the press becoming bold by use of their Indian Language, so as to ascertain and achieve “better control” of the language press, the Vernacular Press Act, 1878 was enacted and brought into force.

In 1851 the telegraph was introduced, pursuant to which the Indian Telegraph Act was enforced in 1885. Consequently, the then Government in 1908 passed the Newspaper (Incitement to Offences) Act which empowered the local authorities to take an action against editor of any newspaper wherein it was suspected/observed that the articles contained in the newspaper, had the tendency to incite rebellion. Subsequently, the Press Act, 1910 was enforced wherein the Government was authorised/empowered to claim an amount under the garb of security from any Newspaper. In furtherance, to the aforementioned act, the Government enacted/passed the Copyright Act ,1957 and the Cinematograph Act in 1952.

Lately, the Right to Information Act was introduced in 2005 and the implementation of the same has stretched out the freedom of press which made India a liberal country, when it comes to Freedom of Press. There are numerous laws that control and regulate the performance of Press in India. The Constitution of India,1950 has not laid down any specific provision for the Freedom of Press separately but the same can be derived from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,1950 which guarantees Freedom of Speech and Expression to the citizens of India. Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India 1950

‘Trial by media’ is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law. In recent times there have been numerous instances in which media has conducted the trial of an accused and has passed the verdict even before the court passes its judgment. Some famous criminal cases that would have gone unpunished but for the intervention of media, are  Priyadarshini Mattoo case ,  Jessica Lal case ,  Nitish Katara murder case  and  Bijal Joshi rape case [3] .

III. Judicial decisions

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the many cases has ruled that freedom of press is a fundamental right covered by the right to freedom of speech and expression. In the case of  Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi [4] , held that in India under Art.19(1)(a) freedom of speech and expression authoritatively includes the freedom of press print and electronic media and affecting the right of freedom of speech and expression.

And in the case of  Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras [5] , Supreme Court held that freedom of speech or freedom of press lays the foundation of all the democratic organization without political discussion, no public education is possible which is necessary for proper functioning of popular government. In the case of  India Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India   [6] , Justice Venklatrana of Supreme Court of India sated that the freedom of press is an essential for the proper functioning of the democracy.

In LIC v. Manubbai Shah [7] , the Supreme Court reiterated that the freedom of speech and expression must be broadly construed to include the freedom to circulate one’s views by word of mouth, or in writing, or through audio visual media. This includes the right to propagate one’s views through the print or other media. The Apex Court observed: “Freedom to air one’s view is the lifeline of any democratic institution and any attempt to stifle, or suffocate, or gag this right would sound a death knell to democracy and would hold usher in autocracy or dictatorship.”

In the case of  Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Trade Officer [8] , the Supreme Court of India held that though freedom of press is not under Fundamental Right, but it is an implicit in the freedom of speech and expression. In R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [9] , the Supreme Court held that neither the Government nor the officials had any authority to impose a prior restraint upon publication of a material on the ground that such material was likely to be defamatory of them. In Re: Vijay Kumar [10] , the Supreme Court recognized the scope of freedom of press as an essential prerequisite of a democratic form of democratic form of government and regarded it as  the mother of all other liberties in democratic society.

In the matter of  Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI [11] the Supreme Court discussed postponement orders i.e., judicial orders restraining the media on reporting regarding matters. This is done with the motive of ensuring proper administration of justice and fairness of trial. Another important aspect highlighted was that even in matters where fair and accurate reporting takes place there is also a real and substantial risk of serious prejudice to connected trials. Also, postponement orders are also a means to avoid contempt. This is for the protection of media lest it commit contempt in its zeal to pursue a story. These orders are also a useful tool to balance conflicting public interests in terms of both safeguarding the sanctity of the judicial process and the right of freedom of speech and expression being exercised by the media. The Supreme Court had another word of caution in the matter of Satish bhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [12]   held that if media trial is a possibility, sentencing by media cannot be ruled out.

IV. Media and their influence in society

The paid news which is given by any political party or any other big organisation easily deviate the media from the real objective and the media being the mirror to the world or being an eye opener, becomes a puppet in the hand of powers. Hence media being working for the people, by the people and of the people become for the sponsor, by the sponsor and of the sponsor. Sometimes these issues give birth to the media trials in which the media proof someone guilty before the judgement of the court.

In the matter of  State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi [13] the Supreme Court while considering the issue of sentencing observed that a trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of the rule of law. This may very well lead to miscarriage of justice and therefore, a Judge should guard himself against any such pressure and should strictly be guided by the rules of law. Parties have a constitutional right to have a fair trial in the court of law, by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by newspaper dictation or popular Glamour.

In the Sheena Bohra Murder Case, the eyes of media have pierced the personal life of the main accused Indirani Mukherjee which was fully accused by the media. Every aspect of her personal life and character was in public lens of examination via media. There have been numerous instances in which media has conducted trials of an accused and they had been verdict even before the judgement passed by the judiciary.

In 20th century a famous celebrity Fatty Arbuvckle was proved guilty by the media trial but he was proved not guilty by the Hon’ble Court but due to the media trial his entire career and his reputation was against him due to all the wrong media coverage. In the case of Arushi Talwar Murder Case the media has verdict that the murder has been done by her parents Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Talwar, he was not guilty but the media proved him guilty.

The Law Commission in its 200th report, Trial by Media: Free Speech versus Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ), has recommended a law to debar media from reporting anything prejudicial to the rights of the accused from time to arrest to investigation and trial in criminal proceedings. [14]

On November 2006, the former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal expressed his views on media trials as:

According to law a accused is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty in the court of law, and is entitled to be a fair trial. So, it is legitimate to demand that nobody can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice one’s case? Why should judges be swayed by public opinion?

The Supreme Court reiterated that the media and the judiciary are institutions inhabiting separate spheres and their functions do not overlap. One cannot and must not use the other for discharge of its functions. It was observed that media should only engage in acts of journalism and not act as a special agency for the court. The impermissibility of freedom of speech and expression amounting to interference with the administration of justice due to the prejudicial nature of certain media coverage was also highlighted. [15]

Attorney General of India, K.K.Venugopal while appearing in his personal capacity in the 2009 contempt of court case against lawyer Prashant Bhushan, said that the manner in which court news is being reported by media has serious implications [16]   has been held to quote “Today electronic and print media are freely commenting on pending cases in an attempt to influence judges and public perception. This is doing great damage to the institution,”.

To conclude, Freedom of press has always been a cherished right in all democratic countries and the press has rightly been described as the Fourth Pillar of Democracy. Media can be regarded as the fourth pillar of democracy until and unless the transparency will be there and in this era the media is considered as the daily necessity because the day starts with the media and ends with the same whether its social media or print media or electronic media. Upon a collective assessment of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India on the aspect of media trial it is clear that the risk that they pose is real. The State and the Fourth Estate have a responsibility to defer to each other’s respective domains. While the State should be circumspect regarding any censorship or penal action against the media, at the same time the media should refrain from any unwarranted transgressions. Media trials entail the possibility of subverting administration of justice right from the stage of investigation, trial and finally sentencing. In today’s age of click-bait journalism aimed at satisfying the increasingly short attention span of viewers there exists a subtle by clearly defined line which should not be crossed. Factual narration in itself is safe, however done with a pre-disposed view towards guilt or innocence without any official indictment is clear case of overreach by the media.

[1] State of Maharashtra v/s Rajendrajawanmal Gandhi., (1997) 8 SCC 386

[2] Nariman, Fali S., Are Impediments to Free Expression in the Interest of Justice, CIJL Yearbook, Vol 4, 1995.

[3] http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/0158AEEE-1A16-473C-A41A-DB93A66000EB.pdf

[4] Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129

[5] Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124

[6] India Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India  AIR 1986 SC 515

[7] LIC v. Manubbai Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637.

[8] Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Trade Officer1994 SCR (1) 682

[9] R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1995 SC 264

[10] (1996) 6 SCC 466

[11] Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI; (2012) 10 SCC 603

[12] Satish bhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra; (2009) 6 SCC 498

[13] State of Maharashtra v. RajendraJawanmal Gandhi; (1997) 8 SCC 386

[14] http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/0158AEEE-1A16-473C-A41A-DB93A66000EB.pdf

[15] R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court; (2009) 8 SCC 106 

SEE ALSO: M.P. Lohia v. State of W.B.; (2005) 2 SCC 686.

[16] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/media-trial-causing-great-damage-to-judiciary-attorney-general-kk-venugopal/story-XXroXLeMrdHYAKP85SjsgL.h

Total number of HTML views: 24517

Total number of pdf downloaded: 1063, open access.

http://doi.one/10.1732/IJLMH.26050

Recent content

1 the right to bail and the implications of the presumption of innocence under the criminal procedure code (cpc): a practice approach.

By Keme Nicholas Ogbe

Volume: 7 Issue : 3 Page: 1232 - 1245

2 Laws Governing Social Media Platforms in India: An Analytical Study

By Himanshu Danodia and Priyadarshini Tiwari

Volume: 7 Issue : 3 Page: 1218 - 1231

3 Media Trials: An Antithesis to Sub-Judice

By Ashmit Khurana

Volume: 7 Issue : 3 Page: 1206 - 1217

4 Media Representation of Women and its Influence on Societal Perception

By Adya Mishra and Dr Bhawna Arora

Volume: 7 Issue : 3 Page: 1192 - 1205

5 Comparative Jurisprudence: Unraveling the Doctrine of Proportionality in the USA, UK, and India

By Selma G.S.

Volume: 7 Issue : 3 Page: 1174 - 1191

International Journal of Law Management & Humanities

Typically replies within 24 hours.

Any questions related to the journal or your submission?

WhatsApp Us

🟢 We will respond within 24 hours, maybe less.

WhatsApp us.

In the judgment declared on 18th January 2021, the Bombay High Court, India has elaborated the position of media trials in India, declaring the judicial point of view. The court viewed the effects and consequences of media trials in the administration of justice, a quintessential factor of modern democracies. The judgment pronounced by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni of the Bombay High Court walks on a tight rope navigating the line between the “freedom of the press” guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the menace of media trials running contrary to the same Constitution of India. But, in a larger scheme of questions does this case stand as a novelty in the jurisprudence i.e. “Modern Foundation of Media Trials in India” in a world consumed by emerging technologies?

In the wake of the death by suicide of the popular Indian actor, Sushant Singh Rajput, the reporting of this case provided for a sad state of affairs by news reporting channels. The reporting by such news channels hampered the investigation which was exponentially important for justice administration. Several Public Interest Litigations were filed in the Bombay High Court against the media trials in the wake of such reportage. The phenomenon of declaring the accused as a convict even before the Court had given its judgment, is called media trials. It is the widespread coverage of the guilt of the accused and imposing a certain perception about him, regardless of any of the verdict given by the court of law. In the present case, the reputation of the partner of the deceased actor, actress Rhea Chakraborty, was brutally torn apart by the media houses in what may constitute a “media trial”.

In the past, the fourth pillar of Indian democracy has proved to be a tool of advancing the interest of the victims in remarkable cases such as the Jessica Lal Case , the Priyadarshini Mattoo Case , 2006 and the Bijal Joshi Rape Case , 2005. The power of the fourth pillar,“media”, has been immense, however, when this power hampers the administration of justice, intervention by the Court becomes necessary.

The judgment pronounced by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni has touched upon several key issues in relation to media trials mainly dealing with: directions to prominent television networks to restrict reportage that could hamper the investigation, re-interpretation of contempt law, and guidelines for the regulation the print or broadcast media without curtailing the freedom of the press.

The highlight of the judgement lies in its guidelines established for media houses. The Court in its first provided guidelines of how media houses and channels must report cases dealing with suicide. Whereby the Court held that the privacy of the deceased must be respected at all times, the evidence of sensitive character must not be disclosed, police confessions cannot be made public and while the Court case goes ahead, no interviews of any personalities has to be taken.

The Court also raised the Press Council of India Guidelines and set that though they are binding on the print media, the electronic must abide the same too. In order to establish information in the interest of public.

An important facet of this judgment refers to the “administration of justice” and its extent of its application in modern democracies such as India. It also discusses the issue of contempt of court and places that disclosing any information during the investigation would amount to Contempt of Court. The Court held that TIMES NOW and REPUBLIC TV had reported cases maligning the investigation and obstructing the administration of justice. However, no action against them has been taken.

In the case Suresh Chandra Jana v. State of West Bengal (2017), the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the need to highlight the principle of “criminal justice administration”. This case constructed a broader understanding of the jurisprudence from a comparative perspective bringing the view of other modern democracies such as New Zealand, Australia, England, and the United States. In this case, the Supreme Court elaborated:

“Criminal Justice System seems to exist to protect the power, the privilege and the values of the elite sections in society. The way crimes are defined and the system is administered demonstrate that there is an element of truth in the above perception even in modern times.”

A new aspect of introducing a Media Officer has been suggested by the Court, who may act as a bridge between the media and investigating authority so as to let the public interest be preserved. However, the position can only be created through the legislature in letter and spirit.

On the subject-matter of forms of “regulation” by media houses, the Court has explicitly stated that concerns about the lack of regulation on the electronic mode and urged the Central Government to take appropriate measures to control the problem of “trial by media” through the establishment of statuary bodies.

While discussing the contempt liability issue, i.e. to re-interpret the contempt law with reference to publications of the cases made from the stage of filing an FIR in criminal cases may be subject to contempt liability. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , publications under free trials are sheltered against contempt proceedings. However, any publication which interferes with or obstructs or tends to obstruct any proceeding, be it civil or criminal, and the course of justice, which is actually a pending proceeding, constitutes contempt of court. An illustration of this immunity can be seen through the case of Aarushi Talwar’s Murder , 2013, the media had declared who was guilty and who was not even before the actual trial had begun. The press had immunity for such a publication previously. However, no interference of the legislature was noted. However, a broader understanding of the same has been provided by the Court bringing the action of trial by media under the realm of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

In what may be constructed as the modern foundation of a judicial stance on “trial by media” redefining our understanding of the effects of excess report coverage in the case of Actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the Court seeks to strike a balance between the pillars of our democracy from the judiciary to the media. More so, the view of the court must not be viewed as a solution to this issue. The true achievement shall lie in compliance and administration with the recommended guidelines by the Bombay High Court. With the emergence of newer technology and accessibility to the information point, the “Modern Foundation of Indian Media Trials” jurisprudence shall evolve.

It is a fact that media is bound to report cases of public interest, but, now the media must think twice before it reports asking a crucial question, “does this article or statement cross the line of freedom of the press and enter the realm of media trial?”. The judiciary and media are institutions inhabiting separate spheres and their functions do not overlap. One cannot and must not use the other for the discharge of its functions. The media should only engage in acts of journalism and not act as a special agency for the court. The impermissibility of freedom of speech and expression amounting to an interference with the administration of justice due to the prejudicial nature of certain media coverage.

The guidelines set out to create a new standard of media coverage and resorting benign practices with restrictions created in the interest of the administration of justice.

Vishwajeet Deshmukh is a 4th Year Law Student at Government Law College, Mumbai, India and JURIST Staff Editor.

Suggested citation: Vishwajeet Deshmukh, Media Trials in India: A Judicial View to Administration, JURIST – Student Commentary, January 20, 2021 https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/01/vishwajeet-deshmukh-media-trials-india/.

This article was prepared for publication by Khushali Mahajan , a JURIST staff editor. Please direct any questions or comments to her at [email protected]

St. Ives, patron saint of lawyers, died

St. Ives, Paris student of the civil law, advocate of the poor, and patron saint of lawyers died on May 19, 1303. Learn more about St. Ives in the Catholic Encyclopedia .

Mexico ratifies Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo

On May 19, 1948, Mexico ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo . The treaty ended the Mexican-American War and ceded roughly half of Mexico's territory to the United States. Learn more about the Mexican-American War from the US Library of Congress.

Media Trial And Its Implications Under Indian Laws

• What are the legal and ethical implications of media trials on the right to privacy in India and how can the balance between freedom of the press and privacy rights be effectively achieved?

Freedom of Press and Fair Trial:

Freedom of press:, fair trial:.

• Presumption of Innocence: The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental aspect of criminal justice systems worldwide, including India. It emphasizes that every accused person is entitled to be treated as innocent until the prosecution proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Media trials that create a presumption of guilt before the court's decision can erode this principle and compromise the fairness of the trial.  
• Fair Trial Rights: The right to a fair trial includes the right to an impartial judge and jury. However, media coverage that presents a biased narrative or creates a prejudiced environment can undermine the impartiality of the decision-makers involved in the trial. It is essential to safeguard the accused's right to a fair trial by minimizing external influences that may compromise the neutrality of the decision-making process.  
• Contempt of Court: Media trials that prejudice public opinion or obstruct the judicial process can be held in contempt of court. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, empowers the judiciary to take action against those who scandalize the judiciary or interfere with the administration of justice. This legal provision acts as a safeguard against media trials that impede the fair trial process.
• Public Interest vs. Right to Privacy: While the media's role in informing the public and exposing matters of public interest is crucial, there is a need to strike a balance between the public's right to know and an individual's right to privacy. Determining what constitutes the public interest and how it should be weighed against an individual's privacy can be complex.  
• Media Intrusion and Sensationalism: Media trials can lead to intrusive reporting, sensationalized headlines, and the dissemination of personal details that may not be relevant to the legal proceedings. Such reporting can cause harm, reputational damage, and psychological distress to individuals involved, affecting their right to privacy.  
• Privacy of Witnesses and Victims: Media trials can also impact the privacy of witnesses and victims. Their identities and sensitive personal information may become public, potentially exposing them to social stigma, intimidation, or harassment. Protecting the privacy of these individuals is crucial to ensure their cooperation and to maintain the integrity of the justice system.
• Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. SEBI & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 603: In this case, the Supreme Court of India discussed the issue of media trial and its impact on fair trial. The court emphasized that media should exercise caution and restraint while reporting on ongoing legal proceedings to avoid prejudicing public opinion.
• R. K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106: This case highlighted the importance of upholding the integrity of court proceedings and maintaining the dignity of the judiciary. The Supreme Court held that media trial that interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice can be held in contempt of court.
• Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 158: This case dealt with the issue of media trial in the context of the Best Bakery case, where several accused were acquitted due to witnesses turning hostile. The Supreme Court observed that media trials can influence witnesses, compromise fair trial, and ultimately result in a miscarriage of justice.
• Constitutionality of Media Trials in India: A Detailed Analysis - https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/media-trials-india/
• Present role of media trial in India - https://legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7654-present-role-of-media-trial-in-india.html
• Media trial in India - https://bnblegal.com/article/everything-you-need-to-know-about-media-trial-in-india/
• Trial by media: an overview - https://www.ijlmh.com/paper/trial-by-media-an-overview/
• Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. SEBI & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 603
• R. K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106
• Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 158

Law Article in India

Please drop your comments, you may like.

Understanding and Addressin...

Should Courts Consider Meri...

Corporate Social Responsibi...

The Impact of Technology on...

POSH Amendment Bills: Stepp...

Use of Artificial Intellige...

Legal question & answers, lawyers in india - search by city.

Law Articles

How to file for mutual divorce in delhi.

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Trial by Media: a troubling Netflix series on press coverage of the courtroom

New docuseries executive-produced by George Clooney revisits six high-profile cases in which the media played an outsize role in justice, or lack thereof

I f there’s one case that epitomizes the synonymity of courtroom drama with American television, it’s commonly accepted to be that of OJ Simpson, the celebrated black ex-football player whose acquittal in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson, and her acquaintance Ron Goldman in 1995 became a months-long national obsession. It spawned its own universe of catch-phrases (“If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”) and reality stars (the Kardashians) but though grand in celebrity, it was hardly the first case in which court television built frenetic national interest. As the Netflix docuseries Trial by Media reveals, the history of American media’s embedment in the criminal justice system has a much deeper and dizzying history than one sensational, oft-cited case.

Trial by Media, whose executive producers include George Clooney, Court TV creator Steven Brill and longtime CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin (whose book on the Simpson trial inspired Ryan Murphy’s 2016 Emmy-winning drama The People v OJ Simpson) is a deeply researched, bitingly edited sprawl of a series that favors identifying America’s tentacled media and criminal justice system over one pointed argument. It revisits six cases – some famous, others less so – in which the media played an outsized role. “We wanted a mix of cases that were famous and recognizable, and cases that were … just bizarre and fascinating on their own terms,” Toobin, a New Yorker staff writer, told the Guardian.

The series begins with one of the thorniest examples: the so-called “talkshow murder” in 1995, when a young man from Michigan, Jon Schmitz, shot and killed acquaintance Scott Amedure days after Amedure revealed his crush on Schmitz on an episode of the Jenny Jones Show, a “gotcha”-style daytime program which thrived on ginned-up conflict between guests with little regard for off-air consequences. (The episode featuring Schmitz and Amedure, queasy clips of which are played in the episode, never made it to air.) The episode introduces themes coursing throughout the series: the boon of sensational courtroom television, which broadcast the trial; the toll of attention on participants; the unreality of televised speculation twisting conflicting public sympathies in real time.

Still, “we didn’t want to make the series just about cameras in the courtroom,” said Toobin. “It’s really only part of the story. It’s really more about media manipulation from a broader perspective.” Said manipulation, and the mutual gravitation of media attention and public sympathy, are at the heart of the next two episodes: on Bernard Goetz, a white man who unrepentantly shot four black teenagers on the New York subway in 1984 but was misbranded the “subway vigilante” during an era of high muggings in the city; and on the death of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed west African immigrant who was shot at, in what became an incendiary headline, 41 times by New York police in the vestibule of his Bronx apartment. In both cases, the narratives unfolding outside the courtroom, founded in ruptured racial tensions, mismatched with evidence and the formalities of the trial within it. “I think in each of these stories, you see that the one-sentence media summary is almost invariably misleading if not outright wrong” compared with the trial, Toobin said.

Episode four concerns the financial crimes of Richard Scrushy, the ostentatiously wealthy former CEO of HealthSouth, an Alabama-based Fortune 500 company, who (publicly) reinvented himself into a white televangelist in Birmingham’s black church community – one filled with potential jurors – after he was charged with fraud in 2004. The episode serves as an understated thesis statement of sorts, in the Scrushy lawyers’ cynical understanding of trial as a game of storytelling; you have to know your audience.

Captivating a perpetual audience is, ultimately, the business strategy of cable news, the ethics of which are explored in the final two episodes: on the gang rape trial at Big Dan’s bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts, in 1984, which was broadcast in all its ghastly detail on a newly minted CNN (the defense’s strategy to smear the 21-year-old victim’s character on national television, and the many public comments that she “asked for it”, are an unsettling antecedent to the #MeToo movement). Finally, there’s the Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich’s frenzied corruption scandal in 2008, in which a press-hungry politician basically interviews his way into prison … and, now with a pardon from Donald Trump, back out.

Trial by Media can feel unsettlingly circular, in that it examines the entertainment demands placed on the legal system by media coverage by distilling them into six chapters structured, edited and paced for one’s entertainment on the world’s largest streaming platform. That’s not a criticism so much as recognition of one of the trickier feelings one gets from watching the series. Some of the media’s transgressions – the Jenny Jones segment in which a gay crush is presented as scandalous for a national audience, primetime interviews with Goetz, the total lack of concern for the privacy of the anonymous victim in the New Bedford rape trial – were clearly exploitative and abhorrent, condemnable now if not necessarily then. But so much of the media’s relationship with the justice system – the presentation of narrative to a captive audience – is bound up in the legal system’s, and humankind’s, instinct to use storytelling to make sense of behavior, and that jurors carry existing narratives and experiences into the courtroom.

“The one thing you can say with certainty is that courtrooms are not hermetically sealed from what’s going on in the world,” said Toobin. “That tension between wanting a verdict entirely on the evidence in the individual case and recognizing that politics and social conditions are always going to affect the outcome – that is I think part of the tension that’s always going to be present in courtrooms.”

With the exception of an interview with Toobin for the Diallo case, which he covered as a journalist for the New Yorker, the series’ producers stay behind the scenes; the chapters dive into the thicket of storytelling, attention and incendiary dynamics at the heart of the six cases rather than present a unified theory on the media’s role in US criminal trials. The perspective is not overall bleak – coverage of Diallo’s case helped explode tensions against the Giuliani administration’s street crimes policing against black and brown New Yorkers into a protest movement; the shocking details of the New Bedford case, printed and repeated again and again in media coverage, inspired a street-filling march of solidarity that could be a #MeToo march if not for the 80s clothing. The through-lines to the present reveal, Toobin said, how “courtrooms are laboratories where every societal ill or virtue is played out. Every problem in the society is going to be played out in a courtroom, and I think the series joins this inherent fascination with individual trials with these broader societal issues.”

With the cases of Simpson, or his book on the Clinton impeachment , “people always say ‘oh, I know the whole story,’” said Toobin. “They never know the whole story. They never know as much as they think they know.” People might think they remember the details of the Diallo and Goetz cases, two of the more high-profile examples, he said, but “if you watch, you see that you’ll learn a tremendous amount, and that these stories are always richer and more complicated the closer you get.”

Trial by Media is now available on Netflix

• Documentary

Most viewed

Constitutionality of Media Trials in India: A Detailed Analysis

By Nimisha Jha, NLIU, Bhopal      

Editor’s Note:   Media plays a vital role in moulding the opinion of the society and it is capable of changing the whole viewpoint through which people perceive various events. Heinous crimes must be condemned and the media would be justified in calling for the perpetrators to be punished in accordance with the law. However, the media cannot usurp the functions of the judiciary and deviate from objective and unbiased reporting. While a media shackled by government regulations is unhealthy for democracy, the implications of continued unaccountability are even more damaging. Steps need to be taken in order to prevent media trials from eroding the civil rights of citizens, whereby the media have a clearer definition of their rights and duties, and the courts are given the power to punish those who flagrantly disregard them. 

INTRODUCTION

The demi-world of journalism is like the fun house of mirrors that one finds in carnivals. In one reflection you are too fat; in another you are absurdly thin; in another reflection you appear to have an elongated neck; in another, a flat head,- in still another you have next to nobody. Yet there you are, standing in front of these bizarre reflections, fully formed and hearing little resemblance to any of the images before you. The difference is, however, that unlike the fun house of mirrors, the distortions of the media are rarely a joke [1] .

With the case of Sheena Bohra murder, the excruciating eyes of the media have pierced the personal life of the main accused Indrani Mukherjea which has kicked in a fresh debate on the issue of media trial of the accused. Every aspect of her personal life and character which have nothing to do legally with the investigation of the murder are under public lens of scrutiny via the media. The ethics of journalism have been again in a controversial area due to their prying eyes on the accused.

Media is regarded as one of the four pillars of democracy. Media plays a vital role in moulding the opinion of the society and it is capable of changing the whole viewpoint through which people perceive various events. The media can be commended for starting a trend where the media plays an active role in bringing the accused to hook. Especially in the last two decades, the advent of cable television, local radio networks and the internet has greatly enhanced the reach and impact of the mass media. The circulation of newspapers and magazines in English as well as the various vernacular languages has also been continuously growing in our country. This ever-expanding readership and viewership coupled with the use of modern technologies for newsgathering has given media organizations an unprecedented role in shaping popular opinions. However, media freedom also entails a certain degree of responsibility [2] .

The strength and importance of media in a democracy is well recognized. Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution, which gives freedom of speech and expression includes within its ambit, freedom of press. The existence of a free, independent and powerful media is the cornerstone of a democracy, especially of a highly mixed society like India. Media is not only a medium to express one’s feelings, opinions and views, but it is also responsible and instrumental for building opinions and views on various topics of regional, national and international agenda. The pivotal role of the media is its ability to mobilize the thinking process of millions. The increased role of the media in today’s globalized and tech-savvy world was aptly put in the words of Justice Learned Hand of the United States Supreme Court when he said, “The hand that rules the press, the radio, the screen and the far spread magazine, rules the country” [3] .

Democracy is the rule of the people, a system which has three strong pillars. But as Indian society today has become somewhat unstable on its 3 legs- the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, the guarantee of Article 19 (1)(a) has given rise to a fourth pillar known as media or press. It plays the vital role of a conscious keeper, a watchdog of the functionaries of society and attempts to attend to the wrongs in our system, by bringing them to the knowledge of all, hoping for correction. It is indisputable that in many dimensions the unprecedented media revolution has resulted in great gains for the general public. Even the judicial wing of the state has benefited from the ethical and fearless journalism and taken suo-moto cognizance of the matters in various cases after relying on their reports and news highlighting grave violations of human rights [4] .

However, there are always two sides of a coin. With this increased role and importance attached to the media, the need for its accountability and professionalism in reportage cannot be emphasized enough. In a civil society no right to freedom, howsoever invaluable it might be, can be considered absolute, unlimited, or unqualified in all circumstances. The freedom of the media, like any other freedom recognized under the Constitution has to be exercised within reasonable boundaries. With great power comes great responsibility. Similarly, the freedom under Article 19(1) (a) is correlative with the duty not to violate any law [5] .

In an increasingly competitive market for grabbing the attention of viewers and readers, media reports often turn to distortion of facts and sensationalisation. The pursuit of commercial interests also motivates the use of intrusive newsgathering practices which tend to impede the privacy of the people who are the subject of such coverage. The problem finds its worst manifestation when the media extensively covers sub judice matters by publishing information and opinions that are clearly prejudicial to the interests of the parties involved in litigation pending before the Courts [6] .

However, sensationalised news stories circulated by the media have steadily gnawed at the guarantees of a right to a fair trial and posed a grave threat to the presumption of innocence. What is more, the pervasive influence of the press is increasingly proving to be detrimental to the impartial decision making process of the judiciary. Such news stories cannot easily be defended under the auspices of freedom of expression [7] .

Every institution is liable to be abused, and every liberty, if left unbridled, has the tendency to become a license which would lead to disorder and anarchy. This is the threshold on which we are standing today. Television channels in a bid to increase their Television Rating Point (TRP) ratings are resorting to sensationalized journalism with a view to earn a competitive edge over the others [8] .

In recent times there have been numerous instances in which media has conducted the trial of an accused and has passed the verdict even before the court passes its judgment. Some famous criminal cases that would have gone unpunished but for the intervention of media, are Priyadarshini Mattoo case , Jessica Lal case , Nitish Katara murder case and Bijal Joshi rape case . The media however drew flak in the reporting of murder of Aarushi Talwar , when it preempted the court and reported that her own father Dr. Rajesh Talwar, and possibly her mother Nupur Talwar were involved in her murder, the CBI later declared that Rajesh was not the killer.

This phenomenon is popularly called as media trial. Trial by Media it is the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. There is a heated debate between those who support a free press which is largely uncensored and those who place a higher priority on an individual’s right to privacy and right to a fair trial. During high publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial nearly impossible but means that regardless of the result of the trial the accused persons will not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny. The counter-argument is that the mob mentality exists independently of the media which merely voices the opinions which the public already has. There are different reasons why the media attention is particularly intense surrounding a legal case: the first is that the crime itself is in some way sensational, by being horrific or involving children; the second is that it involves a celebrity either as victim or accused. Although a recently coined phrase, the idea that popular media can have a strong influence on the legal process goes back certainly to the advent of the printing press and probably much beyond. This is not including the use of a state controlled press to criminalize political opponents, but in its commonly understood meaning covers all occasions where the reputation of a person has been drastically affected by ostensibly non-political publications. The problem is more visible when the matters involve big names and celebrities. In such cases media reporting can swing popular sentiments either way [9] .

The practice which has become more of a daily occurrence now is that of media trials. Something which was started to show to the public at large the truth about cases has now become a practice interfering dangerously with the justice delivery system. And it highlights the enormous need of what is called ‘responsible journalism’ [10] .

A HISTORY OF MEDIA TRIALS

Although a recently coined phrase, the idea that popular media can have a strong influence on the legal process goes back certainly to the advent of the printing press and probably much further. This is not including the use of a state controlled press to criminalize political opponents, but in its commonly understood meaning covers all occasions where the reputation of a person has been drastically affected by ostensibly non-political publications.

20th century

One of the first celebrities in the 20th century to be arguably tried by media was Roscoe ‘Fatty’ Arbuckle who was acquitted by the courts but nevertheless lost his career and reputation due to the media coverage.

Parallels can be drawn between these cases and the trial of O.J. Simpson. The connection is less about guilt or innocence but about the promotion of the media coverage in the public mind above the status of the court.

Another interesting case in the US was the Rodney King incident and subsequent trial of the police officers involved. Once again an acquittal is challenged by the media reporting with violent consequences. What makes this case particularly important historically is the fact that it was amateur video footage which provided the key evidence of perceived guilt. As video cameras and their digital successors and CCTV become wider spread, this type of ‘caught on camera’ incident become more and more common. This can pose real problems for the legal system as the evidence they provide may be inadmissible for technical reasons (e.g. not being able to pinpoint exact times) but they give very strong images for the media (and public) to seize upon and the potential to manipulate by editing.

Even where a criminal court finds somebody guilty the media can still appear to sit in judgement over their sentence. Examples include Myra Hindley whose proposed release from prison after thirty years was widely condemned by the British press (the argument became moot when she died in 2002); Maxine Carr who, having served her sentence, has been released and is, according to some commentators being “demonised by the press”. One case popularized by the media between 1980 and 1982 was the murder trial of Lindy Chamberlain in Australia who was, but later released in 1986 on new evidence showing that a dingo had in fact committed the act as was originally claimed by Chamberlain. The motion picture A Cry in the Dark depicted Chamberlain, as played by actress Meryl Streep, caught in a “trial by media” which fed the public’s, and subsequently the jury’s false conviction of her.

Often the coverage in the press can be said to reflect the views of the person in the street. However, more credibility is generally given to printed material than ‘water cooler gossip’. The responsibility of the press to confirm reports and leaks about individuals being tried has come under increasing scrutiny and journalists are calling for higher standards. There was much debate over U.S President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial and prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s investigation and how the media handled the trial by reporting commentary from lawyers which influenced public opinion. Another example was the investigation into biologist Steven Hatfill allegedly sending anthrax through the U.S. mail as a terrorist attack, which resulted in no conviction, but Hatfill went on to sue as his reputation was severely tarnished and career destroyed.

Families and friends of persons convicted of crimes have apparently successfully used the power of the media to reopen cases, such as the Stephen Downing case in Derbyshire where a campaign by a local newspaper editor resulted in a successful appeal and his release after twenty seven years in prison.

IMPACT OF MEDIA TRIALS

Media trials vs. freedom of speech and expression.

Freedom of speech plays a crucial role in the formation of public opinion on social, political and economic matters. Similarly, the persons in power should be able to keep the people informed about their policies and projects, therefore, it can be said that freedom of speech is the mother of all other liberties. [11]

Keeping this view in mind Venkataramiah, J. of the Supreme Court of India in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [12] has stated:

“[f]reedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse. The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-formal education possible in a large scale particularly in the developing world, where television and other kinds of modern communication are not still available for all sections of society. The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate [Government] cannot make responsible judgments. Newspapers being purveyors of news and views having a bearing on public administration very often carry material which would not be palatable to Governments and other authorities.”

The above statement of the Supreme Court illustrates that the freedom of press is essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process. Democracy means Government of the people, by the people and for the people; it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his right of making a choice, free and general discussion of public matters is absolutely essential. [13] This explains the constitutional viewpoint of the freedom of press in India.

In Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. CTO [14] the Supreme Court has reiterated that though freedom of the press is not expressly guaranteed as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of the press has always been a cherished right in all democratic countries and the press has rightly been described as the fourth chamber of democracy.

It therefore received a generous support from all those who believe in the free flow of the information and participation of the people in the administration; it is the primary duty of all national courts to uphold this freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with this freedom, are contrary to the constitutional mandate. [15]

In R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N [16] the Supreme Court of India has held that freedom of the press extends to engaging in uninhabited debate about the involvement of public figures in public issues and events. But, as regards their private life, a proper balancing of freedom of the press as well as the right of privacy and maintained defamation has to be performed in terms of the democratic way of life laid down in the Constitution.

Therefore, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in various judgments and the views expressed by various jurists, it is crystal clear that the freedom of the press flows from the freedom of expression which is guaranteed to all citizens by Article 19(1)(a). Press stands on no higher footing than any other citizen and cannot claim any privilege (unless conferred specifically by law), as such, as distinct from those of any other citizen. The press cannot be subjected to any special restrictions which could not be imposed on any citizen of the country.

MEDIA TRIAL vs. FAIR TRIAL

Trial by media has created a “problem” because it involves a tug of war between two conflicting principles – free press and free trial, in both of which the public are vitally interested. The freedom of the press stems from the right of the public in a democracy to be involved on the issues of the day, which affect them. This is the justification for investigative and campaign journalism [17] .

At the same time, the “Right to Fair Trial”, i.e., a trial uninfluenced by extraneous pressures is recognized as a basic tenet of justice in India. Provisions aimed at safeguarding this right are contained under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Articles 129 and 215 (Contempt Jurisdiction-Power of Supreme Court and High Court to punish for Contempt of itself respectively) of the Constitution of India. Of particular concern to the media are restrictions which are imposed on the discussion or publication of matters relating to the merits of a case pending before a Court. A journalist may thus be liable for contempt of Court if he publishes anything which might prejudice a ‘fair trial’ or anything which impairs the impartiality of the Court to decide a cause on its merits, whether the proceedings before the Court be a criminal or civil proceeding [18] .

The media exceeds its right by publications that are recognized as prejudicial to a suspect or accused like concerning the character of accused, publication of confessions, publications which comment or reflect upon the merits of the case, photographs, police activities, imputation of innocence, creating an atmosphere of prejudice, criticism of witnesses, the Indian criminal justice system. It encompasses several other rights including the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the guilt is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the law is governed by senses and not by emotions the right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself, the right to a public trial, the right to legal representation, the right to speedy trial, the right to be present during trial and examine witnesses, etc [19] .

In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [20] , the Supreme Court explained that a “fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated.”

Right to a fair trial is absolute right of every individual within the territorial limits of India vide articles 14 and 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Needless to say right to a fair trial is more important as it is an absolute right which flows from Article 21 of the constitution to be read with Article 14. The right to freedom of speech and expression in contained in article 19 of the constitution. Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. In accordance with Article 19(2), this right can be restricted by law only in the “interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.” [21]

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS ON FAIR TRIAL:

In the International context, the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, at Article 6, which states the judiciary is entitled and required “to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and that the rights of the parties are respected.” [22] The principles enunciated in this Article are also stated in similar language in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [23] , which provides that “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal” in the determination of any criminal charge or in a suit at law. [24]

The ICCPR acknowledges that the right to a public trial is not absolute and that certain limitations on public access are necessary.

Article 19 of ICCPR confirms that freedom of expression is also a fundamental part of a democratic society. It elaborates that freedom of expression includes the freedom of the press and states that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” [25]

Under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK and its other signatories are morally committed, the freedom of the press is paramount. Exceptions to that freedom may be made only such as are “necessary in a democratic society”, permissible only to the extent that they correspond to “a pressing social need”, and are proportionate to the end to be achieved. [26]

POSITION IN USA:

A number of decisions of the U.S Supreme Court confirm the potential dangerous impact the media could have upon trials. In the case of Billie Sol Estes [27] , the U.S. Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a Texas financier for denial of his constitutional rights of due process of law as during the pre-trial hearing extensive and obtrusive television coverage took place. The Court laid down a rule that televising of notorious criminal trials is indeed prohibited by the “Due process of Law” clause of Amendment Fourteen.

In another case of Dr.Samuel H.Sheppard [28] , the Court held that prejudicial publicity had denied him a fair trial. Referring to the televised trials of Michael Jackson and O.J.Simpson, Justice Michael Kirby stated:

“The judiciary which becomes caught up in such entertainment, by the public televising of its process, will struggle (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) to maintain the dignity and justice that is the accused’s due. But these are not the media’s concerns. Jurists should be in no doubt that the media’s concerns are entertainment, money-making and, ultimately, the assertion of the media’s power.” [29]

POSITION IN UK:

In England too, the House of Lords in the celebrated case of Attorney General vs. British

Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [30] has agreed that media trials affect the judges despite the claim of judicial superiority over human frailty and it was observed that a man may not be able to put that which he has seen, heard or read entirely out of his mind and that he may be subconsciously affected by it. The Courts and Tribunals have been specially set up to deal with the cases and they have expertise to decide the matters according to the procedure established by the law. Media’s trial is just like awarding sentence before giving the verdict at the first instance. The court held that it is important to understand that any other authority cannot usurp the functions of the courts in a civilized society.

POSITION IN INDIA:

Similarly there have been a plethora of cases in India on the point. The observations of the Delhi High Court in Bofors Case or Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB and Ors. vs. State through CBI [31] are very much relevant, as the Court weighed in favour of the accused’s right of fair trial while calculating the role of media in streamlining the criminal justice system:

“It is said and to great extent correctly that through media publicity those who know about the incident may come forward with information, it prevents perjury by placing witnesses under public gaze and it reduces crime through the public expression of disapproval for crime and last but not the least it promotes the public discussion of important issues. All this is done in the interest of freedom of communication and right of information little realizing that right to a fair trial is equally valuable.”

Such a right has been emphatically recognized by the European Court of Human Rights:

“Again it cannot be excluded that the public becoming accustomed to the regular spectacle of pseudo trials in the news media might in the long run have nefarious consequences for the acceptance of the courts as the proper forum for the settlement of legal disputes.” [32]

The ever-increasing tendency to use media while the matter is sub-judice has been frowned down by the courts including the Supreme Court of India on the several occasions.

In State of Maharashtra vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi [33] , the Supreme Court observed:

“There is procedure established by law governing the conduct of trial of a person accused of an offence. A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of rule of law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice. A judge has to guard himself against any such pressure and is to be guided strictly by rules of law. If he finds the person guilty of an offence he is then to address himself to the question of sentence to be awarded to him in accordance with the provisions of law.”

The position was most aptly summed up in the words of Justice H.R.Khanna: –

“Certain aspects of a case are so much highlighted by the press that the publicity gives rise to strong public emotions. The inevitable effect of that is to prejudice the case of one party or the other for a fair trial. We must consider the question as to what extent are restraints necessary and have to be exercised by the press with a view to preserving the purity of judicial process. At the same time, we have to guard against another danger. A person cannot, as I said speaking for a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in 1969, by starting some kind of judicial proceedings in respect of matter of vital public importance stifle all public discussions of that matter on pain of contempt of court. A line to balance the whole thing has to be drawn at some point. It also seems necessary in exercising the power of contempt of court or legislature vis-à-vis the press that no hyper-sensitivity is shown and due account is taken of the proper functioning of a free press in a democratic society. This is vital for ensuring the health of democracy. At the same time the press must also keep in view its responsibility and see that nothing is done as may bring the courts or the legislature into disrepute and make the people lose faith in these institutions.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Sail Vs. Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association and Others [34] , observed that for rule of law and orderly society, a free responsible press and an independent judiciary are both indispensable and both have to be, therefore, protected. The aim and duty of both is to bring out the truth. And it is well known that the truth is often found in shades of grey. Therefore the role of both cannot be but emphasized enough, especially in a “new India”, where the public is becoming more aware and sensitive to its surroundings than ever before. The only way of orderly functioning is to maintain the delicate balance between the two. The country cannot function without two of the pillars its people trust the most.

MEDIA TRIAL vs. RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED

Through media trial, we have started to create pressure on the lawyers even — to not take up cases of accused, thus trying to force these accused to go to trial without any defense. Is this not against the principles of natural justice? Every person has a right to get himself represented by a lawyer of his choice and put his point before the adjudicating court and no one has the right to debar him from doing so. 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. As we all knew that in that case we had one of the best lawyers of the country, Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for the state and the case of Manu was handed to some mediocre lawyer. The media assumption of guilt clearly encroaches upon the right to legal representation, a critical component of the right to fair trial and may also intimidate lawyers into refusing to represent accused persons. Suspects and accused apart, even victims and witnesses suffer from excessive publicity and invasion of their privacy rights. Police are presented in poor light by the media and their morale too suffers. The day after the report of crime is published; media says ‘Police have no clue’. Then, whatever gossips the media gathers about the line of investigation by the official agencies, it gives such publicity in respect of the information that the person who has indeed committed the crime, can move away to safer places. The pressure on the police from media day by day builds up and reaches a stage where police feel compelled to say something or the other in public to protect their reputation. Sometimes when, under such pressure, police come forward with a story that they have nabbed a suspect and that he has confessed, the ‘Breaking News’ items start and few in the media appear to know that under the law, confession to police is not admissible in a criminal trial. Once the confession is published by both the police and the media, the suspect’s future is finished when he retracts from the confession muddle. Witness protection is then a serious casualty. This leads to the question about the admissibility of hostile witness evidence and whether the law should be amended to prevent witnesses changing their statements. Again, if the suspect’s pictures are shown in the media, problems can arise during ‘identification parades’ conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure for identifying the accused. Subconscious effect on the Judge as one of the major allegations upon ‘media trial’ is prejudicing the judges presiding over a particular case. As there is always a chance judges may get influenced by the flowing air of remarks made upon a particular controversy. The media presents the case in such a manner to the public that if a judge passes an order against the “media verdict”, he or she may appear to many either as corrupt or biased [35] .

IS MEDIA TRIAL A CONTEMPT OF COURT?

Trial by Media is Contempt of Court and needs to be punished. The Contempt of Court Act defines contempt by identifying it as civil [36] and criminal [37] .

Criminal contempt has further been divided into three types:

• Scandalizing
• Prejudicing trial, and
• Hindering the administration of justice.

Prejudice or interference with the judicial process: This provision owes its origin to the principle of natural justice; ‘ every accused has a right to a fair trial ’ clubbed with the principle that ‘ Justice may not only be done it must also seem to be done ’. There are multiple ways in which attempts are made to prejudice trial. If such cases are allowed to be successful will be that the persons will be convicted of offences which they have not committed. Contempt of court has been introduced in order to prevent such unjust and unfair trials. No publication, which is calculated to poison the minds of jurors, intimidate witnesses or parties or to create an atmosphere in which the administration of justice would be difficult or impossible, amounts to contempt. [38] Commenting on the pending cases or abuse of party may amount to contempt only when a case is triable by a judge. [39] No editor has the right to assume the role of an investigator to try to prejudice the court against any person. [40]

The law as to interference with the due course of justice has been well stated by the chief Justice Gopal Rao Ekkbote of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Y.V. Hanumantha Rao v. K.R. Pattabhiram and Anr. [41] , where in it was observed by the learned judge 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, as for instance by influence on the Judge, the witnesses or by prejudicing mankind in general against a party to the cause. 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. To this general rule of fair trial one may add a further rule and that is that none shall, by misrepresentation or otherwise, bring unfair pressure to bear on one of the parties to a cause so as to force him to drop his complaint or defence. It is always regarded as of the first importance that the law which we have just stated should be maintained in its full integrity. But in so stating the law we must bear in mind that there must appear to be ‘a real and substantial danger of prejudice .”

Fair trial Parties have a constitutional right to have a fait trial in the court of law, by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by newspaper dictation or popular clamour. [42] What would happen to this right if the press may use such a language as to influence and control the judicial process? It is to be borne in mind that the democracy demands fair play and transparency, if these are curtailed on flimsiest of grounds then the very concept of democracy is at stake.

The concept of ‘denial of a fair trial’ has been coined by authoritative judicial pronouncements as a safeguard in a criminal trial. But what does the concept ‘denial of fair trial’ actually mean:

The conclusions of the judicial decisions can be summed as follows:

The obstruction or interference in the administration of justice vis a vis a person facing trial. The prejudicial publication affecting public which in term affect the accused amount to denial of fair trial. Prejudicial publication affecting the mind of the judge and Suggesting the court as to in what manner the case should be preceded.

The publisher of an offending article cannot take shelter behind the plea that the trial to which the article relates to isn’t then in progress nor immediately to be begun but it has to occur at a future time. [43] Our law of contempt however does not prevent comments before the litigation is started nor after it has ended. In re P.C.Sen [44] Justice Shah who spoke for the court succinctly put the law as follows:

“ The law relating to contempt of Court is well settled. Any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a Court or a Judge into contempt, or to lower his authority, or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the Court, is a contempt of Court : R. v. Gray [45] ,. Contempt by speech or writing may be by scandalizing the Court itself, or by abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing mankind in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard. It is incumbent upon Courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, for prejudicing the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequences. Speeches or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court or prejudicing the public for or against a party or involving reflections on parties to a proceeding amount to contempt. To make a speech tending to influence the result of a pending trial, whether civil or criminal is a grave contempt. Comments on pending proceedings, if emanating from the parties or their lawyers, are generally a more serious contempt than those coming from independent sources. The question in all cases of comment on pending proceedings is not whether the publication does interfere, but whether it tends to interfere, with the due course of justice. The question is not so much of the intention of the contemner as whether it is calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. ” [46]

In Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration) and Ors [47] it was held by the Delhi High Court that:

“ Conviction, if any, would be based not on media’s report but what facts are placed on record. Judge dealing .with the case is supposed to be neutral. Now if what petitioner contends regarding denial of fair trial because of these news items is accepted it would cause aspiration on the Judge being not neutral. Press report or no reports, the charge to be framed has to be based on the basis of the material available on record. The charge cannot be framed on extraneous circumstances or facts dehors the material available on record. While framing the charge the Court will from prima facie view on the basis of the material available on record. To my mind, the apprehension of the petitioner that he would not get fair trial is perfunctory and without foundation. None of the news items, if read in the proper prospective as a whole, lead to the conclusion that there is any interference in the administration of justice or in any way has lowered the authority of the Court. The Trial Court has rightly observed 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 .”

Even in highly sensitive cases, the session trial has been conducted by the courts of Sessions without fear or favour. The Indian courts have emerged as the most powerful courts in the world with virtually no accountability. But every institution even the courts can go wrong. Every institution including the judiciary has its share of black sheep and corrupt judges. The judiciary is peopled by judges who are human, and being human they are occasionally motivated by considerations other than an objective view of law and justice. It would be foolhardy to contend that none of them, at least some of them, at least some times are motivated by considerations of their own personal ideology, affiliations, predilections, biases and indeed even by nepotistic and corrupt considerations [48] .

In stifling all criticism by the threatened exercise of the power of contempt, the issue in a democratic society is ultimately one of the accountability of the judiciary itself. In order to stifle free speech and comments on the court, even an occasional exercise of this power is enough to deter most persons form saying anything that might annoy their Lordships. Perhaps the most important reason for the lack of reforms in the judiciary is the reluctance of the Press to write about and discuss the state of affairs within it for fear of contempt [49] .

In Saibal Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. B.K. Sen and Anr [50] . It was held by the Supreme Court that: “ 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 that investigation. This is because trial 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. There is no comparison between a trial by a newspaper and what has happened in this case.”

REGULATORY MEASURES

As we concern with the restrictions imposed upon the media, it is clear from the above that a court evaluating the reasonableness of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19 enjoys a lot of discretion in the matter. It is the constitutional obligation of all courts to ensure that the restrictions imposed by a law on the media are reasonable and relate to the purposes specified in Article 19(2).

In Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd [51] the Supreme Court has laid down some principles and guidelines to be kept in view while considering the constitutionality of a statutory provision imposing restriction on fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(a) to (g) when challenged on the grounds of unreasonableness of the restriction imposed by it.

In Arundhati Roy, In re [52] the Supreme Court has considered the view taken by Frankfurter, J. in Pennekamp v. Florida [53] in which Judge of the United States observed: (US p. 366)

“If men, including judges and journalists, were angels, there would be no problem of contempt of court. Angelic judges would be undisturbed by extraneous influences and angelic journalists would not seek to influence them. The power to punish for contempt, as a means of safeguarding judges in deciding on behalf of the community as impartially as is given to the lot of men to decide, is not a privilege accorded to judges. The power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for judges as persons but for the function which they exercise.”

In Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Assn . [54] 17 the editor, printer and publisher and a reporter of a newspaper, along with the petitioner who was a labour union activist, were summarily punished and sent to suffer a six months imprisonment by the High Court. Their fault was that on the basis of a report filed by a trainee correspondent, they published disparaging remarks against the judges of a High Court made by a union activist at a rally of workers. The remarks were to the effect that the decision given by the High Court was rubbish and fit to be thrown into a dustbin. In appeal the Supreme Court upheld the contempt against them, but modified and reduced the sentence.

In D.C. Saxena (Dr.) v. Chief Justice of India [55] the Supreme Court has held that no one else has the power to accuse a judge of his misbehaviour, partiality or incapacity. The purpose of such a protection is to ensure independence of judiciary so that the judges could decide cases without fear or favour as the courts are created constitutionally for the dispensation of justice.

By these above observations and the judgment we can say that restrictions imposed by Article 19(2) upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) including the freedom of press serve a two-fold purpose viz. on the one hand, they specify that this freedom is not absolute but are subject to regulation and on the other hand, they put a limitation on the power of a legislature to restrict this freedom of press/media. But the legislature cannot restrict this freedom beyond the requirements of Article 19(2) and each of the restrictions must be reasonable and can be imposed only by or under the authority of a law, not by executive action alone. [56]

The Press Council of India (PCI) was established to preserve the freedom of the press and to improve the standards of news reporting in India. Under the Press Council Act 1978, if someone believes that a news agency has committed any professional misconduct, the PCI can, if they agree with the complainant, “warn, admonish or censure the newspaper”, or direct the newspaper to, “publish the contradiction of the complainant in its forthcoming issue.” Given that these measures can only be enforced after the publication of news materials, and do not involve particularly harsh punishments, their effectiveness in preventing the publication of prejudicial reports appears to be limited [57] .

Along with these powers, the PCI has established a set of suggested norms for journalistic conduct. These norms emphasise the importance of accuracy and fairness and encourages the press to “eschew publication of inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted material.” The norms urge that any criticism of the judiciary should be published with great caution. These norms further recommend that reporters should avoid one-sided inferences, and attempt to maintain an impartial and sober tone at all times. But significantly, these norms cannot be legally enforced, and are largely observed in breach.

Lastly, the PCI also has criminal contempt powers to restrict the publication of prejudicial media reports. However, the PCI can only exercise its contempt powers with respect to pending civil or criminal cases. This limitation overlooks the extent to which pre-trial reporting can impact the administration of justice. [58]

200 th LAW COMMISSION REPORT

Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression and Art. 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions to be imposed by statute for the purposes of various matters including ‘Contempt of Court’. Art.19(2) does not refer to ‘administration of justice’ but interference of the administration of justice is clearly referred to in the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ [59] in and in Sec.3 thereof as amounting to contempt. Therefore, publications which interfere or tend to interfere with the administration of justice amount to criminal contempt under that Act and if in order to preclude such interference, the provisions of that Act impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, such restrictions would be valid.

At present, under sec. 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with the Explanation below it, full immunity is granted to publications even if they prejudicially interfere with the course of justice in a criminal case, if by the date of publication, a charge sheet or challan is not filed or if summons or warrant are not issued. Such publications would be contempt only if a criminal proceeding is actually pending i.e. if charges heet or challan is filed or summons or warrant are issued by the Court by the date of publication.

Question is whether this can be allowed to remain so under our Constitution or whether publications relating to suspects or accused from the date of their arrest should be regulated?

The Law Commission in its 200th report, Trial by Media: Free Speech versus Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971), has recommended a law to debar the media from reporting anything prejudicial to the rights of the accused in criminal cases, from the time of arrest to investigation and trial.

The commission has said, “ Today there is feeling that in view of the extensive use of the television and cable services, the whole pattern of publication of news has changed and several such publications are likely to have a  prejudicial impact on the suspects, accused, witnesses and even judges and in general on the administration of justice “.

This is criminal contempt of court, according to the commission; if the provisions of the Act impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, such restrictions would be valid.

It has suggested an amendment to of the Contempt of Courts Act. [60] Under the present provision such publications would come within the definition of contempt only after the charge sheet is filed in a criminal case, whereas it should be invoked from the time of arrest.  In another controversial recommendation, it has suggested that the high court be empowered to direct a print or electronic medium to postpone publication or telecast pertaining to a criminal case.  On November 3, 2006, former chief justice of India Y K Sabharwal expressed concern over the recent trend of the media conducting ‘trial’ of cases before courts pronounce judgments, and cautioned:

“According to law an accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty in a court of law, and is entitled to a fair trial. So, it is legitimate to demand that nobody can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice one’s case? Why should judges be swayed by public opinion?”

In the US, the O J Simpson case [61] attracted a lot of pre-trial publicity. Some persons even demonstrated in judges’ robes outside the court and lampooned Etoo, the trial judge. Yet, Simpson was acquitted. The judge was not prejudiced by media campaign or public opinion. The Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that freedom of the press is a fundamental right covered by the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution.

But the right to fair trial has not explicitly been made a fundamental right. That does not mean that it is a less important right. More than a legal right, it is basic principle of natural justice that everyone gets a fair trial and an opportunity to defend oneself.

The NHRC, in its special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court against acquittal of the accused in the Best Bakery case [62] , contended that the concept of a fair trial is a constitutional imperative recognised in Articles 14, 19, 21, 22 and 39-A as well as by the CrPC.

It is true that contempt of court is a ground for restricting the freedom of speech, but the media has not tried to lower the dignity of the judiciary by exposing loopholes of the investigation and the prosecution.

And if judicial decisions also appear to be arbitrary, they must be subjected to ruthless scrutiny. It will be dangerous to gag the press in the name of contempt of court. If the appellate court feels that the media publicity affected fair trial, it can always reverse the decision of the lower court.

In the US, in 1965, Sam Sheppard [63] was convicted for murder. As this case received an enormous amount of pre-trial publicity, the US supreme court ruled that Sheppard’s  conviction [64] were violated and overturned the trial court’s decision.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the US supreme court began focusing more on the media’s First Amendment rights — the right to freedom of the press.

The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Rajendra Sail case [65] , though given in context of criminal contempt, provides the proper guideline:

“For rule of law and orderly society, a free press and independent judiciary are both indispensable”.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MEDIA TRIALS

Freedom of press:.

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 [66] , embodies the right to freedom of speech, that is, “ everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference ” and the “ freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice .” [67]

Nonetheless, this freedom comes with a rider that the exercise of this right comes with “ special duties and responsibilities ” and is subject to “ the rights or reputations of others ”. The right to freedom of speech and expression has been guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. Even though freedom of press is not a separately guaranteed right in India unlike the United States of America, the Supreme Court of India has recognized freedom of press under the umbrella right of freedom of speech and expression as envisaged under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India [68] .

In In Re: Harijai Singh and Anr. and In Re: Vijay Kumar [69] , the Supreme Court had the occasion to decide on the scope of the freedom of press, recognized it as “ an essential prerequisite of a democratic form of government ” and regarded it as “ the mother of all other liberties in a democratic society ” [70] . The right under Art 19(1) (a) includes the right to information and the right to disseminate through all types of media, whether print, electronic or audiovisual means [71] . It was stated in Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India [72] , that the right includes the right to acquire and impart ideas and information about matters of common interest.

The Supreme Court has stated that trial by press, electronic media or trial by way of a public agitation are instances that can at best be described as the anti-thesis of rule of law as they can lead to miscarriage of justice. In the opinion of the honourable court, a Judge has to guard himself against such pressure [73] . In Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India [74] , the Supreme Court observed that “ No occasion should arise for an impression that the publicity attached to these matters (the hawala transactions) has tended to dilute the emphasis on the essentials of a fair trial and the basic principles of jurisprudence including the presumption of innocence of the accused unless found guilty at the end of the trial ” [75] .

IMMUNITY UNDER CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971:

Under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, pre-trial publications are sheltered against contempt proceedings. Any publication that interferes with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding, which is actually ‘pending’, only then it constitutes contempt of court under the Act. Under Section 3(2), sub clause (B) of clause (a) of Explanation, ‘pending’ has been defined as “ In the case of a criminal proceeding, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898) or any other law – (i) where it relates to the commission of an offence, when the charge sheet or challan is filed; or when the court issues summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused.”

Certain acts, like publications in the media at the pre-trial stage, can affect the rights of the accused for a fair trial. Such publications may relate to previous convictions of the accused, or about his general character or about his alleged confessions to the police. Under the existing framework of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, media reportage, as seen during the

Aarushi Talwar case, where the press, had literally gone berserk, speculating and pointing fingers even before any arrests were made, is granted immunity despite the grave treat such publications pose to the administration of justice. Such publications may go unchecked if there is no legislative intervention, by way of redefining the word ‘pending’ to expand to include ‘from the time the arrest is made’ in the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, or judicial control through gag orders as employed in United States of America.

Due to such lacunas, the press has a free hand in printing colourful stories without any fear of consequences. Like a parasite, it hosts itself on the atrocity of the crime and public outrage devoid of any accountability .

THE PUBLIC’s RIGHT TO KNOW:

The Supreme Court has expounded that the fundamental principle behind the freedom of press is people’s right to know [76] . Elaborating, the Supreme Court opined, “ The primary function, therefore, of the press is to provide comprehensive and objective information of all aspects of the country’s political, social, economic and cultural life. It has an educative and mobilising role to play. It plays an important role in moulding public opinion ” [77] .

However, the Chief Justice of India has remarked, “ freedom of press means people’s right to know the correct news ”, but he admitted that newspapers cannot read like an official gazette and must have a tinge of “sensationalism, entertainment and anxiety”.

In the Bofors Case [78] , the Supreme Court recounted the merits of media publicity: “ those who know about the incident may come forward with information, it prevents perjury by placing witnesses under public gaze and it reduces crime through the public expression of disapproval for crime and last but not the least it promotes the public discussion of important issues. ” [79]

Two important core elements of investigative journalism envisage that

(a) the subject should be of public importance for the reader to know and

(b) an attempt is being made to hide the truth from the people. [80]

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Some scholars justify a ‘trial-by-media’ by proposing that the mob mentality exists independently of the media which merely voices the opinions which the public already has. In a democracy, transparency is integral. Without a free press, we will regress into the dark ages of the Star Chambers, when the judicial proceedings were conducted secretively. All these omnipresent SMS campaigns and public polls only provide a platform to the public to express its views. It is generating public dialogue regarding issues of public importance. Stifling this voice will amount to stifling democracy. [81]

Quoting Jeremy Bentham, on secrecy in the administration of justice,

“ In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape are in full swing. Only  in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice  operate. Where there is no publicity, there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice.  It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps  the judge himself while trying under trial. ” [82]

INEFFECTIVE LEGAL NORMS GOVERNING JOURNALISTIC CONDUCT:

Under the Press Council Act, 1978, the Press Council of India is established, with the objectives to “ preserve the freedom of the Press and to maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India ” [83] .

To achieve these objectives, it must “ ensure on the part of newspapers, news agencies and journalists, the maintenance of high standards of public taste and foster a due sense of both the rights and responsibilities of citizenship ” [84] and “ encourage the growth of a sense of responsibility and public service among all those engaged in the profession of journalism ” [85] .

The Council, also, enjoys powers to censure. If someone believes that a news agency has committed any professional misconduct, the Council can, if they agree with the complainant, “warn, admonish or censure the newspaper”, or direct the newspaper to, “publish the contradiction of the complainant in its forthcoming issue” under Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978 [86] .

Given that these measures can only be enforced after the publication of news materials, and do not involve particularly harsh punishments, their effectiveness in preventing the publication of prejudicial reports appears to be limited.

In Ajay Goswami v. Union of India [87] , the shortcomings of the powers of the Press Council were highlighted: Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978 empowers the Press Council only to warn, admonish or censure newspapers or news agencies and that it has no jurisdiction over the electronic media and that the Press Council enjoys only the authority of declaratory adjudication with its power limited to giving directions to the answering respondents arraigned before it to publish particulars relating to its enquiry and adjudication. It, however, has no further authority to ensure that its directions are complied with and its observations implemented by the erring parties. Lack of punitive powers with the Press Council of India has tied its hands in exercising control over the erring publications.

Along with these powers, the Press Council of India28 has established a set of suggested norms for journalistic conduct. These norms emphasize the importance of accuracy and fairness and encourage the press to “ eschew publication of inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted material .” The norms urge that any criticism of the judiciary should be published with great caution. These norms further recommend that reporters should avoid one-sided inferences, and attempt to maintain an impartial and sober tone at all times. But significantly, these norms cannot be legally enforced, and are largely observed in breach. Lastly, the PCI also has criminal contempt powers to restrict the publication of prejudicial media reports. However, the PCI can only exercise its contempt powers with respect to pending civil or criminal cases. This limitation does not consider the extent to which pre trial reporting can impact the administration of justice. [88]

MEDIA TRIALS: A NECESSARY EVIL?

We have a rich tradition of fiercely independent journalism. In fact, most of the big scams were busted by the press. The law enforcers merely followed them up. The poorly paid journalist must be credited for extracting those information which looked inaccessible for the top vigilance teams of the country. That is how HDW(Howaldswerske) marine case and Bofors hit the headlines. That is how we found out that Narasimha Rao had bribed the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs and Satish Sharma and Buta Singh had brokered the deal. The media did us proud at every place of our political juncture. There is increasing and intense public focus on Courts and the cases filed therein. Now that the Courts have come under the media’s microscope, they are likely to remain there forever. A Positive by product of changes spurred by the media and addressed by the Courts is that more Indians are aware of their constitutional rights than ever before. The media strongly resents this sub judice rule and complains that Courts during the course of a hearing tend to interpret the sub judice rule quite strictly to prohibit any discussion of the issues before the Court even if they are engaging public attention. There is, therefore, an urgent need to liberalize the sub judice rule, invoking it only in cases of an obvious intent to influence the trial and not to any act that might have the remote possibility of influencing it. Another major constraint on stings and trials by media is the public interest. If public interest is missing and self or manipulative interests surface, the media loses its ground and invites the wrath of the court. [89]

From the above account it becomes clear that the media had a more negative influence rather than a positive effect (except for a few exceptions here and there). The media has to be properly regulated by the courts. The media cannot be granted a free hand in the court proceedings as they are not some sporting event. The law commission also has come up with a report on “ Trial by Media: Free Speech vs. Fair Trial under Criminal Procedure ” (Amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971)’ [Report number 200 prepared in 2006].

The most suitable way to regulate the media will be to exercise the contempt jurisdiction of the court to punish those who violate the basic code of conduct. The use of contempt powers against the media channels and newspapers by courts have been approved by the Supreme Court in a number of cases as has been pointed out earlier. The media cannot be allowed freedom of speech and expression to an extent as to prejudice the trial itself.

The print and electronic media have gone into fierce and ruthless competition, as we call them ‘aggressive journalism’ that a multitude of cameras are flashed at the suspects or the accused and the police are not even allowed to take the suspects or accused from their transport vehicles into the courts or vice versa. Earlier, journalism was not under pressure to push up TRP ratings or sales. So the journalists did their work with serious intent and conviction, with courage and integrity. They did not pronounce people guilty without making a serious attempt to study the charges, investigate them, and come to their own independent conclusions, without fear or favour. They did not blindly print what law enforcers claimed, what the bureaucracy said or what politicians planted on to them. That is why people trusted them. But now we are seeing a different self acquired role of media in form of ‘media trial’. [90]

Everyone manipulates the media to serve their own interests or hurt their rivals. The problem does not lie in media’s exposing the lacuna of a bad investigation by police, or mal-performance of the duties ordained to the civil servants but the eye-brows start to raise when the media ultra vires its legitimate jurisdiction and does what it must not do. Be it highlighting the sub-judice issues into public keeping at stake the sanctity of judicial procedures and ‘right to life with dignity’ of accused and suspects. The media trial has now moved on to media verdict and media punishment which is no doubt an illegitimate use of freedom and transgressing the prudent demarcation of legal boundaries. [91]

From the above account it becomes clear that the media had a more negative influence rather than a positive effect. The media has to be properly regulated by the courts. The media cannot be granted a free hand in the court proceedings as they are not some sporting event. Any institution, be it legislature, executive, judiciary or bureaucracy, is liable to be abused if it exceeds its legitimate jurisdiction and functions. Media trial is also an appreciable effort along with the revolutionary sting operations as it keeps a close watch over the investigations and activities of police administration and executive. But there must be a reasonable self-restriction or some sort of regulations over its arena and due emphasis should be given to the fair trial and court procedures must be respected with adequate sense of responsibility. Media should acknowledge the fact that whatever they publish has a great impact over the spectator. Therefore, it is the moral duty of media to show the truth and that too at the right time. The most suitable way to regulate the media will be to exercise the contempt jurisdiction of the court to punish those who violate the basic code of conduct. The use of contempt powers against the media channels and newspapers by courts have been approved by the Supreme Court in a number of cases as has been pointed out earlier. The media cannot be allowed freedom of speech and expression to an extent as to prejudice the trial itself. An ideal proposal will be that the Indian press and the Indian people are not at present democratic enough to allow the press to intrude in the judicial process. What will an ideal proposition in allowing the media trial at this moment. It’s definitely an ideal proposition to allow controlled media reporting of the cases once the media is supposed to come out of the profit and sensational considerations. The media has to play the role of a facilitator rather than tilting the scales in favour of one or the other party. Heinous crimes must be condemned and the media would be justified in calling for the perpetrators to be punished in accordance with the law. However, the media cannot usurp the function of the judiciary and deviate from objective and unbiased reporting. While a media shackled by government regulations is unhealthy for democracy, the implications of continued unaccountability are even more damaging. Steps need to be taken in order to prevent media trials from eroding the civil rights of citizens, whereby the media have a clearer definition of their rights and duties, and the courts are given the power to punish those who flagrantly disregard them [92] .

What lessons does the Jessica Lall fiasco teach us? There is definitely a case for intensifying efforts to upgrade the quality of policing. There is at the same time a need to improve judicial performance. For instance, the Jessica trial took nearly seven years to get completed. Hardly anyone has commented on this. Will it be unreasonable to demand that this should be taken up by the Delhi High Court as a kind of case study to find out why there was such delay? The public would like to satisfy themselves that the failure was not because of judicial lethargy, but rather because of several extraneous factors such as police indifference and wanton delaying tactics on the part of the defence. The current popular perception is that judicial accountability is an unrealisable dream. It is for the judiciary to prove this perception wrong.

The above analysis reveals us the gravity of the situation as it persists in India. An ideal proposal will be that the Indian press and the Indian people are not at present democratic enough to allow the press to intrude in the judicial process. It’s definitely an ideal proposition to allow controlled media reporting of the cases once the media is supposed to come out of the profit and sensational considerations. The media has to play the role of a facilitator rather than tilting the scales in favour of one or the other party.

Heinous crimes must be condemned and the media would be justified in calling for the perpetrators to be punished in accordance with the law. However, the media cannot usurp the function of the judiciary and deviate from objective and unbiased reporting.

While a media shackled by government regulation is unhealthy for democracy, the implications of continued unaccountability are even more damaging. Steps need to be taken in order to prevent media trials from eroding the civil rights of citizens, whereby the media have a clearer definition of their rights and duties, and the courts are given the power to punish those who flagrantly disregard them.

The judiciary has been critical of the overactive and prejudicial reporting by the media. In the Labour Liberation Front case, Justice L. Narasimha Reddy lamented the “ abysmal levels to which the norms of journalism have drifted .” In M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal [93] , the Supreme Court cautioned the publisher, editor and journalist of a magazine that had reported the facts of a case that was sub-judice, thus “interfering with the administration of justice.”

The observations of Mr. Andrew Belsey in his article ‘Journalism and Ethics, can they co-exist’ [94] ) quoted by the Delhi High Court in Mother Dairy Foods & Processing Ltd v. Zee Telefilms [95] aptly describe the state of affairs of today’s media. He says that journalism and ethics stand apart. While journalists are distinctive facilitators for the democratic process to function without hindrance the media has to follow the virtues of ‘accuracy, honesty, truth, objectivity, fairness, balanced reporting, respect or autonomy of ordinary people’. These are all part of the democratic process. But practical considerations, namely, pursuit of successful career, promotion to be obtained, compulsion of meeting deadlines and satisfying Media Managers by meeting growth targets, are recognized as factors for the ‘temptation to print trivial stories salaciously presented’. In the temptation to sell stories, what is presented is what ‘public is interested in’ rather than ‘what is in public interest’.

The Indian Law Commission’s recent report entitled Trial by Media: Free Speech vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971) has made recommendations to address the damaging effect of sensationalised news reports on the administration of justice. While the report has yet to be made public, news reports indicate that the Commission has recommended prohibiting publication of anything that is prejudicial towards the accused — a restriction that shall operate from the time of arrest. It also reportedly recommends that the High Court be empowered to direct postponement of publication or telecast in criminal cases.

The credibility of news media rests on unbiased, objective reporting. It is in the media’s interest to ensure that the administration of justice is not undermined.

Edited by Kanchi Kaushik

[1] TRIAL BY MEDIA AND TRIAL OF MEDIA

http://www.rrtd.nic.in/MassMediaIndia2009.pdf (last visited on 21/10/2014 at 00:07)

[2] http://www.civilservicestimes.co.in/editorial-/current-national-issues/416-trial-by-media-looking-beyond-the-pale-of-legality-.html (last visited on 21/10/2014 at 00:08)

[3] Right to Privacy in Sting Operations of Media

http://odisha.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2013/may/engpdf/57-61.pdf (last visited on 21/10/2014 at 00:09)

[6] Supra note 2

[8] Supra note 3

[9] Supra note 2

[10] Supra note 3

[11] Freedom of press in India : Constitutional Perspectives

http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content&itemid=1&do_pdf=1&id=6752 (last visited on 21/10/2014 at 00:05)

[12] (1985) 1 SCC 641 at p. 664, para 32.

[13] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248

[14] (1994) 2 SCC 434

[15] Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641

[16] (1994) 6 SCC 632

[17] Supra note 3

[19] Supra note 2

[20] (2005) 2 SCC (Jour) 75

[21] Supra note 2

[22] UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, G.A. Res.146, U.N. GAOR, 40thSess.(1985) art.6.

[23] Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. Entered into force on 23 March 1976 in accordance with article 49.

[24] Art. 14(1), ICCPR, (1966) 999 UNTS 171, 1976 Can. T.S. No. 47, in force, including Canada, 1976.

[25] Article 14(1) of the ICCPR provides that “[t]he Press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interests of the private lives of the Parties so requires, or to the extent necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.”

[26] As well as Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

[27] Estes v Texas 381 US 532 (1965)

[28] Sheppard v Maxwell 346 F.2d 707 (1965)

[29] Supra note 3

[30] [1981] AC 303

[31] 2004 (72) DRJ 693

[32] Supra note 3

[33] 1997 (8) SCC 386

[34] (2005) 6 SCC 109

[35] Supra note 2

[36] Section 2(b).

[37] Section 2 (a)

[38] AIR 1943 lah 329(FB).

[39] Subhash Chandra v. S. M . Agarwal, 1984 Cri LJ 481(Del).

[40] Dm v. MA Hamid Ali Gardish, AIR 1940 Oudh 137.

[41] AIR1975 AP 30.

[42] Cooper v. People (1889) 6 Lawyers Report Annotated 430(B).

[43] Leo Roy Frey Vs. R. Prasad and Ors , AIR 1958 P&H 377.

[44] AIR 1970 SC 1821.

[45]  [1900] 2 Q.B.D. 36 at p. 40

[46] Para 8.

[47] 1996 CriLJ 3944.

[48] Supra note 2

[50] AIR 1961 SC 633.

[51] (1995) 1 SCC 501

[52] (2002) 3 SCC 343

[53] 328 US 331 : 90 L Ed 1295 (1946)

[54] (2005) 6 SCC 109 per Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (for himself and Tarun Chatterjee, J.)

[55] (1996) 5 SCC 216

[56] Supra note 16

[57] http://presscouncil.nic.in/OldWebsite/NORMS-2010.pdf (last visited on 21/10/2014 at 00:14)

[59] sec. 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

[60] Section 3(2)

[61] Case no. BA097211

[62] (2005) 2 SCC (Jour) 75

[63] Sam Sheppard was convicted for the murder of his pregnant wife in their Cleveland suburban home

[64] Sixth Amendment rights

[65] (2005) 6 SCC 109

[66] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976.

[67] Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966:

• Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
• Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
• The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

[68] TRIAL-BY-MEDIA: DERAILING JUDICIAL PROCESS IN INDIA

http://www.nalsar.ac.in/pdf/Journals/Media%20Law%20Review_2010.pdf (last visited on 21/10/2014 at 00:03)

[69] (1996) 6 SCC 466, paras 8, 9 and 10.

[70] Ibid., para 8.

[71] Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of West Bengal , 1995(2) SCC 161; Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras 1950 SCR 594; See also Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D Shah , (1992 (3) SCC 637.

[72] 1960 (2) SCR 671.

[73] State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi , 1997 (8) SCC 386.

[74] 1996 (6) SCC 354.

[75] Ibid., para 7.

[76] A.G. v. Times Newspaper, (1973) 3 All ER 54; Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd . v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1950, para 29; Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1236, para 4.

[77] In Re: Harijai Singh and Anr.; In Re: Vijay Kumar, (1996) 6 SCC 466, para 10.

[78] Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB v. State through CBI , 2004 (72) DRJ 693.

[79] Ibid., para 10

[80] Supra note 73

[82] K.G. Balakrishnan, The Constitution, The Media And The Courts , The Fourth K.S. Rajamony Memorial Public Law Lecture, Kerala, www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/new_links/9%5B1%5D.8.08.rajamony.pdf

[83] Press Council Act, 1978, Section 13(1).

[84] Press Council Act, 1978, Section 13(2) (c).

[85] Press Council Act, 1978, Section 13(2) (d).

[86] Section 14(1) of the Press Council Act, 1978, states: “ Where, on receipt of a complaint made to it or otherwise, the Council has reason to believe that a newspaper or news agency has offended against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste or that an editor or working journalist has committed any professional misconduct, the Council may, after giving the newspaper, or news agency, the editor or journalist concerned an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry in such manner as may be provided by regulations made under this Act and, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, warn, admonish or censure the newspaper, the news agency, the editor or the journalist or disapprove the conduct of the editor or the journalist, as the case may be. ”

[87] (2007) 1 SCC 143

[88] Supra note 73

[89] Supra note 2

[93] AIR 2005 SC 790

[94] published in Media Ethics : A Philosophical Approach, edited by Mathew Kieran

[95]   IA 8185/2003 Suit No. 1543/2003 dated 24.1.2005

Related Posts:

5 thoughts on “Constitutionality of Media Trials in India: A Detailed Analysis”

A good article on media trials and freedom of speech.

Amazing !!! really informative. Thank you so much or such an extraordinary article Nimisha. well done.

Wonderful article Nimisha

Wonderful article Nimisha.Keep it up

after this no more information is needed more everything is covered in a mannered sequence. JUST MARVELLOUS

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :)

Thanks, I’m not interested

Trial by Media, Is it fair?

Here's a nation, one of the founding pillars was freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And yet we have imposed upon people restrictions, on what they can say, on what they can think. And the media is the largest proponent of this, crucifying people who say things really quite innocently. -Benjamin Carson

Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before or after the verdict in a court of law

Media has been the voice of thousands through which a platform is provided for the common man. In rapidly changing socio economic conditions like in India ( largest democratic country) media has gained prominence and hence referred as a fourth pillar of democracy. Of course sometimes a drop of ink dropped down from the journalist's pen might be more powerful than a bullet from the soldier's gun. According to criminal jurisprudence a suspect/accused is entitled to a fair trial until proven guilty/innocent by the court of law.

The right of freedom of speech and expression is contained in article 19 of the constitution. However the freedom is not absolute as it is bound by the sub clause of the same article stating that the right of freedom of speech and expression does not embrace the freedom to commit contempt of court.

We live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups. I ask, in my writing, 'What is real?' Media is something which has to properly guide in this. In India trial by media has attained significant proportions. The media is the most powerful entity of earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent and that's "POWER "to control the minds of masses. Over the past years the human entity has been connected so much to the media that even children today speak out through social media.

Some famous criminal cases that would have gone unpunished but for the intervention of media are Priyadarshini Mattoo case, Jessica Lal case, Nitish Katara murder case etc.

Even in the recent case like Aarushi Talwar's case the media has played a major role pointing towards her parents. Likewise it can change the whole way of perceiving. The concept of media trial is not new. There have been numerous instances in which media has been accused of conducting the trial of the accused and passing the 'verdict' even before the court passes its judgment. Trial is essentially a process to be carried out by the courts. It is essential by any judicial system that the accused should have a fair trial.

Media has almost reincarnated itself as the public court. It has been the voice of the people who can never be heard, the light to the people who can never see the reality and the guide to the judge affecting the decisions. High-profile civil litigation is not just decided in the courts; it also is decided in the court of public opinion. The magnitude of the coverage and the filter through which the media reports on litigation can create a "clear bias in civil cases." A larger issue is the complex nature of juror bias and how that bias predisposes a juror toward one side in a case. It is no secret that we all have biases. The difficulty comes from understanding how those biases may ultimately affect the viewing of evidence and the deliberations in a case. Judges are also Human Beings they too care about the reputation and promotion and remunerations. Media is so much into our day to day life that even judges can't stay away from it. And as a result there is also an additional pressure on the judges which include trials of high publicity.

Media needs to act as a watchdog and show the society whatever is happening around and also needs to act as the platform for the voice of the society. But now a day's even media has been doing things for their salaries and TRP's. Hence it should be well regulated by the court to maintain the basic code of conduct.

Tell me, why is the media here so negative? Why are we in India so embarrassed to recognize our own strengths, our achievements? We are such a great nation. We have so many amazing success stories but we refuse to acknowledge them. Why? (As quoted by late Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam)

So media should be a missile used to bring a great change and a judge and a public weapon free of corruption

Suhrudwamsi Musunuri

Related Essay

• Effect of Trial by Media Before Courts
• Media trial: an impediment in fair trial
• Trial by Media NOT a Fair Trial
• On Trial By Media Free Speech And Fair Trial
• Essay on media trial: an impediment in fair trial
• Discuss on media trial: an impediment in fair trial
• Discuss on Trial by Media NOT a Fair Trial
• UPSC Final Results 2019 New
• UPSC Mains Results 2022 [ New ]
• Free CSAT Practice Test
• Practice Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Videos
• UPSC Results
• Prelims Question Papers
• Prelims Marks Distribution
• General Studies Notes [ Free ]
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• UPSC Mains Syllabus
• UPSC Jobs List
• UPSC Subjects
• UPSC Age Limit
• IAS Full form
• Free UPSC Material
• IAS Exam Book
• How to prepare for prelims 2023
• How to prepare for CSAT
• UPSC Study Material
• UPSC Interview Questions
• UPSC IAS Exam Questions
• Economic Survey 2020-21 Download
• Union Budget 2020-21 Download
• National Education Policy 2020 Download
• Daily UPSC Current Affairs Quiz
• Union Budget 2024-25 [ New ]  

Civil Service Essay Contest May - June 2024

• Are elections free and fair in India?
• Is employment is real issue in India as compared to other countries? What can we do to improve the situation?
• Should we do away with reservation and open up to all as equal opportunity?

Civil Service Essay Contest (March 2024)

• Changing trends in the female workforce, how it can be harnessed for better growth. Views : 417
• Is the caste barrier breaking due to increased love marriages in India? Views : 1872

Top Civil Service Coaching Centers

• IAS Coaching in Delhi
• IAS Coaching in Mumbai
• IAS Coaching in Chennai
• IAS Coaching in Bangalore
• IAS Coaching in Hyderabad
• UPSC Syllabus
• IAS Full Form
• UPSC Post List
• UPSC Subject List
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus Pdf
• UPSC Notes Pdf in English
• IAS Exam Preparation
• Union Budget 2024 - 2025

Current Affairs Analysis

About Civil Service India

Civil Service India is a website dedicated to the Civil Services Exam conducted by UPSC. It guides you through the entire gambit of the IAS exam starting with notification, eligibility, syllabus, tips, quiz, notes and current affairs. A team of dedicated professionals are at work to help you!

Stay updated with Us

Phone : +91 96000 32187 / +91 94456 88445

Email : [email protected]

‘SNL’ Cold Open Riffs on Trump Trial and His VP Picks

By Anne McCarthy

Anne McCarthy

• ‘SNL’ Makes Fun of JoJo Siwa’s Edgy Rebrand: Like a ‘Figure Skater Joined a Street Gang’ and ‘Mad Max on Broadway’ 2 weeks ago
• ‘SNL’ Cold Open Addresses Campus Protests and Riffs on Canceled Graduations 2 weeks ago
• Caitlin Clark Roasts Michael Che For His Sexist ‘SNL’ Jokes, Gifts Him Signed Apron 1 month ago

The 49 th  season finale of “Saturday Night Live” opened with James Austin Johnson as Donald Trump speaking at the barricades of a Manhattan courthouse, in a nod to Trump’s ongoing legal woes amid his presidential campaign. 

Popular on Variety

Making fun of Trump’s sexist comments about women (and how he once said Heidi Klum is “no longer a 10”), Johnson, as Trump says of a juror at his trial, “They call her juror 9, but to me, she’s like a six, baby.” 

Johnson’s Trump then introduced three of his potential VP candidates. “We love to say ‘VP’, like ‘Veep’ with Elaine from ‘Seinfeld.’ She can’t dance!” He says he won’t announce his VP just yet. “In many ways, it will be determined by the winner of the Jake Paul-Mike Tyson fight.” Trump says he’s invited a few people from “my short bus––I mean my shortlist.” 

He brings out South Carolina Governor Tim Scott (played by Devon Walker). “I’m here to help Trump win the Black vote,” he says. Trump adds, “I’m more popular than you among the Blacks, which is really saying something.” Walker, as Scott says, “Black people have called my support humiliating, but trust me, I am my own man!” 

Finally, he wheels out his final VP pick, “The late great Hannibal Lecter!” Trump says, as Mikey Day as Hannibal Lecter is wheeled out in an orange jumpsuit and wearing the famous mask. “I think he’d really scare everybody at the border. “Get him out of here, he’s giving me Pence vibes,” says Trump, as Hannibal Lecter is then wheeled away. 

Trump says it’s going to be “the summer of Trump. You’re gonna get that Trump espresso,” he sings in a reference to a Sabrina Carpenter song. Johnson, as Trump says he’ll be selling more Trump Bibles as well, along with a “Trump Torah.” 

Trump finishes the cold open shouting, “In the words of my mentor, the late great Hannibal Lecter, “Live from New York, it’s Saturday night!”

This week’s “ SNL ” host is actor Jake Gyllenhaal, and Sabrina Carpenter stars as the week’s musical guest.

Watch the sketch below:

More From Our Brands

How to watch the ‘american idol’ finale online without cable, patek philippe leads geneva’s spring watch auctions to a frothy $125 million, no a’s in attendance: oakland trails a whopping 553 u.s. teams, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, young sheldon ep addresses paige’s absence in final season: ‘we never thought that was an arc that needed more closing than it got’, verify it's you, please log in.

site categories

Jerry seinfeld heckled at virginia comedy show by pro-palestinian protester, breaking news.

• Hannibal Lecter Rolled Out As Potential Trump VP Choice In Short & Sharp ‘SNL’ Season-Finale Cold Open

By Dominic Patten

Dominic Patten

Executive Editor, Legal, Labor & Politics

More Stories By Dominic

• Cassie Ventura Lawyer Slams Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs For “Disingenuous” Apology Video
• Sean Combs Won’t Face Charges For 2016 L.A. Beating Of Cassie, DA Says, Despite Video Evidence; “Cover-Up” Could Warrant Possible Probe

“I’m not afraid to testify at all, I’m just not going to out of fear,” said James Austin Johnson ‘s Donald Trump from the hall of a Manhattan courthouse in the cold open tonight of the final show of SNL ’s 49th season.

Related Stories

‘SNL’ Season 49 Finale Sets Stage For Anniversary As Cast Leave Possible Goodbyes For Next Year

Colin Jost & Michael Che Completely Break In ‘SNL’ Joke Swap Tradition: Kendrick Lamar, Scarlett Johansson, Comcast & Space Lasers Mentioned

“And finally, my last and favorite choice is a man I can’t stop talking about in my rallies, It’s the late great Hannibal Lector,” Johnson’s near pitch perfect Trump announced as a very wide eyed SNL featured player Michael Longfellow was wheeled in as the Silence of the Lambs killer played to Oscar winning glory by Anthony Hopkins . “There he is, I keep calling his late, great even though he’s not dead, he’s not great and he’s not real, but I think you’d really scare everybody at the border right?”

RELATED: Jake Gyllenhaal Celebrates ‘SNL’s Season 49 Finale In Musical Monologue Ahead Of Historic 50th Season

Of course, part of Johnson’s genius at nailing Trump is how he captures the 77-year-old Art of the Deal author’s insecurities as much as his bravado. A dual impression snagged in its totality with the near throwaway lines of “get him out of here, he’s giving me Pence vibes. I don’t like this.”

RELATED: Jake Gyllenhaal & Most Of ‘SNL’ Cast Skewers Southwest: “Want More Leg Room, Premium Food And Drink Services? Fly A Different Airline’

Looking forward to a summer he will spend at least the start of in court, SNL ‘s Trump promised more Trump Bibles on sale with a twist and a January 6 siege of the Capitol, but this time in shorts — as you can see below:

And now, a message from Former President Donald Trump. #SNLFinale pic.twitter.com/kuTBHoc3aY — Saturday Night Live – SNL (@nbcsnl) May 19, 2024

RELATED: ‘SNL’ Pays Tribute To Dabney Coleman

After a season of more misses that hits with the cold open, SNL choose well with Johnson’s Trump and the VP walk of shame. The sharp just over five-minute intro was even more on the ball with the sheer nuttiness, even for the much-indicted Donald, of the past and potentially future POTUS’ belabored references to Hannibal the Cannibal at a New Jersey rally last weekend.

“The late, great Hannibal Lecter is a wonderful man,” the real Trump told his Garden State crowd on . “He oftentimes would have a friend for dinner. Remember the last scene? ‘Excuse me, I’m about to have a friend for dinner’ as this poor doctor walked by. ‘I’m about to have a friend for dinner.’ But Hannibal Lecter, congratulations. The late, great Hannibal Lecter.”

AKA – stuff you literally could not make up.

RELATED: ‘SNL’ Parodies Spate Of Random Attacks On Actors In NYC: “Stop Punching Character Actors In The Face’

Fresh off the news this week of a Road House sequel coming from Prime Video, Jake Gyllenhaal  is hosting SNL ’s Season 49 finale tonight. This is the third time the 2006 Oscar nominee has fronted the Lorne Michaels run show. He previously hosted in 2007 and 2022. Musical guest Sabrina Carpenter makes her SNL debut tonight.

Saturday Night Live will be celebrating its 50 th anniversary next year with a three-hour NBC primetime special on February 16 that finishes off a weekend salute on the network. Dovetailing into NBC’s Paris Olympics coverage this summer, SNL also has a Radio City Music Hall extravaganza planned.

Must Read Stories

‘horizon’ review + red carpet; demi moore’s ‘substance’ a scream; more.

Will ‘Megalopolis’ Distributors Replicate One Of Movie’s Buzziest Moments?

Season finale with jake gyllenhaal; trump vp cold open; what’s in store for season 50, ‘if’ rises to $34 million+, ‘strangers’ strong, ‘back to black’ goes belly-up.

Subscribe to Deadline Breaking News Alerts and keep your inbox happy.

Read More About:

Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2024 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Judge directs Michael Cohen to keep quiet about Trump ahead of his hush money trial testimony

With Donald Trump’s fixer-turned-foe Michael Cohen expected to take the witness stand Monday, Judge Juan Merchan has issued prosecutors a stern warning: Get Cohen to stop his taunting posts and jabs at Trump. (AP video: John Minchillo) (Production: Javier Arciga)

Former President Donald Trump, with attorney Todd Blanche, right, arrives at Manhattan criminal court in New York, on Friday, May 10, 2024. (Timothy A. Clary/Pool Photo via AP)

• Copy Link copied

Stormy Daniels testifies on the witness stand as a promotional image for one of her shows featuring an image of Trump is displayed on monitors in Manhattan criminal court, Thursday, May 9, 2024, in New York. (Elizabeth Williams via AP)

NEW YORK (AP) — With Donald Trump’s fixer-turned-foe Michael Cohen expected to take the witness stand Monday, the judge in the former president’s hush money case issued prosecutors a stern warning: Get Cohen to stop his taunting posts and jabs at Trump.

Judge Juan M. Merchan’s comments came as a dramatic and consequential week in the first criminal trial of a former American president drew to a close Friday. The prosecution could rest its case by the end of next week, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said.

Prosecutors have been building up their case ahead of important testimony from Cohen, who arranged the $130,000 payout to porn actor Stormy Daniels to keep her from going public ahead of the 2016 election about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier. Trump denies ever having sex with Daniels.

What to know about Trump’s hush money trial:

• Follow the AP’s latest updates on Michael Cohen’s cross-examination.
• A guide to terms used in the Trump trial.
• Trump is the first ex-president on criminal trial. Here’s what to know about the hush money case.
• Trump is facing four criminal indictments, and a civil lawsuit. You can track all of the cases here.

The judge’s warning underscores how Cohen is not only prosecutors’ most crucial witness, but their most complicated. Once a Trump loyalist, he has become one of his fiercest critics since pleading guilty to federal charges, routinely bashing and mocking the former president on social media.

Defense attorneys will argue that the now-disbarred lawyer who served prison time is out to get Trump and cannot be believed.

Two people familiar with the matter told The Associated Press that Cohen is expected to take the stand Monday. The people could not discuss the matter publicly and spoke to AP on condition of anonymity.

Trump’s lawyers complained after Cohen in a social media video this week wore a shirt featuring a figure resembling the former president behind bars. The defense has argued it’s unfair that Trump is under a gag order that prevents him from speaking publicly about witnesses while Cohen is free to speak badly about Trump.

“It’s becoming a problem every single day that President Trump is not allowed to respond to this witness, but this witness is allowed to continue to talk,” defense attorney Todd Blanche said.

Merchan told prosecutors they should inform Cohen “that the judge is asking him to refrain from making any more statements” about the case or about Trump. Prosecutors told the judge they already requested that Cohen and other witnesses not talk about the case, but they have no direct means of controlling witnesses’ behavior.

Cohen did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday from The Associated Press.

As the third week of testimony wrapped up, the case that ultimately hinges on record-keeping returned to deeply technical testimony — a sharp contrast from Daniels’ dramatic, if not downright seamy, account of the alleged sexual encounter with Trump that riveted jurors earlier this week.

Witnesses in the case have seesawed between bookkeepers and bankers with testimony about records and finances to Daniels and others with unflattering stories about Trump and the tabloid world machinations meant to keep them secret. Despite all the drama, in the end, the trial is about money changing hands — business transactions — and whether those payments were made to illegally influence the 2016 election.

Former President Donald Trump gestures as he walks to the courtroom following a break in his trial at Manhattan criminal court Thursday, May 9, 2024, in New York. (Angela Weiss/Pool Photo via AP)

Friday’s dry testimony appeared to test jurors’ patience at times. One juror stifled a yawn while another stretched out his arms. Others shifted their gaze around the room or stared up at the ceiling.

Trump, who was visibly angry during much of Daniels’ testimony, chatted frequently with his lawyers and read through a stack of papers on the table in front of him as jurors heard from witnesses such as AT&T and Verizon workers, who authenticated phone records.

Leaving the courthouse, Trump addressed the allegation at the heart of the case: that he falsified his company’s records to conceal the nature of hush money reimbursements to Cohen. Trump’s lawyers have portrayed the ledger entries at issue in the case as pro forma actions performed by a Trump Organization employee.

“A very good bookkeeper marked a legal expense as a legal expense,” Trump said. “He was a lawyer, not a fixer,” he added, referring to Cohen.

Back on the witness stand Friday morning was Madeleine Westerhout, a former Trump White House aide. Prosecutors used Westerhout’s testimony to detail the process by which Trump got personal mail — including checks to sign — while in the White House. It’s relevant because that’s how he received and signed the checks that reimbursed Cohen for the payment to Daniels, prosecutors say.

While questioning Westerhout, Trump’s attorney elicited testimony aimed at supporting the defense’s argument that Daniels was paid to stay silent in order to protect Trump’s family, not his campaign.

Westerhout told jurors that Trump was “very upset” when The Wall Street Journal published a 2018 story about the hush money deal with Daniels.

“My understanding was that he knew it would be hurtful to his family,” Westerhout said, though she acknowledged she didn’t recall him saying so specifically.

Jurors also saw social media posts showing that Trump initially praised Cohen after the then-lawyer came under federal investigation. Trump started bashing him after Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations, along with other crimes, and claimed Trump directed him to arrange the payment for Daniels. Trump was never charged with any crime related to that federal investigation.

Daniels’ story of an alleged sexual encounter with Trump was a crucial building block for prosecutors, who are seeking to show that the Republican and his allies buried unflattering stories in the waning weeks of the 2016 presidential election in an effort to illegally influence the race.

Over more than 7½ hours of testimony, Daniels relayed in graphic detail what she says happened after the two met at a 2006 celebrity golf outing at Lake Tahoe where sponsors included the adult film studio where she worked. Daniels explained how she felt surprise, fear and discomfort, even as she consented to sex with Trump.

During combative cross-examination, Trump’s lawyers sought to paint Daniels as a liar and extortionist who’s trying to take down the former president after drawing money and fame from her claims.

After Daniels left the witness stand Thursday, Trump’s attorneys pushed for a mistrial over the level of tawdry details she provided, but the judge denied the request.

This criminal case could be the only one of four against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to go to trial before voters decide in November whether to send him back to the White House. Trump has pleaded not guilty and casts himself as the victim of a politically tainted justice system working to deny him another term.

Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press reporters Eric Tucker in Washington, Ruth Brown in New York and Adriana Gomez Licon in Miami contributed.