Dr.
RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL
LAW UNIVERSITY
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -I
A REFLECTIVE NOTE
ON
CONSITUTIONALITY OF MEDIA TRIALS
SUBMITTED TO – SUBMITTED BY –
Dr. Atul Kumar Tiwari Janvi Dorwal
Associate Professor Enrollment No.- 230101064
(Constitutional law) B.A. LL.B. (hons.)
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University 3rd Semester, Section ‘A’
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..........................................................................................................3
IS TRIAL BY MEDIA HINDERING OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM?.........................................4
WHAT IS TRIAL BY MEDIA?................................................................................................4
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MEDIA TRIALS.......................................................................5
MEDIA TRIAL VS RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL..........................................................................7
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................9
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide Dr.
Atul Kumar Tiwari, Professor of Constitutional law for his exemplary guidance, monitoring
and constant encouragement throughout the course of this project.
The support, help and guidance given by him from time to time shall take me a long way in
the journey of life. I would like to thank and express a deep sense of gratitude to my
professor for allocating this project to me and valuable information and guidance, which
helped me in completing this task through various stages.
I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends for their constant encouragement
without which this assignment would not have been possible.
~Shashwat Singh
IS TRIAL BY MEDIA HINDERING OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM?
Media, which is the fourth pillar of a democracy, the other three being legislature, executive
and judiciary, functions to inform the citizens about all the daily important happenings in the
country which concerns the people directly or indirectly. It also has an impact on them by
stating unbiased facts, divulging information regarding the current scenarios of the country
such as political affairs, polices by government, elections, or judicial developments. A free
media manifests a healthy democracy acting as a watchful protector for the underprivileged,
deprived and the exploited. It provides voice against injustice faced by the common man and
keeps in check the other functionaries of our system by bringing out the naked truth in front
of the public.
WHAT IS TRIAL BY MEDIA?
Justice Frankfurt, an eminent jurist has remarked that “A free press is not to be preferred to
an independent judiciary, nor an independent judiciary to a free press. Neither has primacy
over the other, both are indispensable to a free society. The freedom of the press in itself
presupposes an independent judiciary through which that freedom may, if necessary, be
vindicated. And one of the potent means for assuring judges their independence is a free
press”. However, with India's enormous media expansion over the previous two decades, we
have seen the media losing its professionalism and a sense of accountability to the masses.
Alongside the technological development, social media has acquired great importance in the
dissemination of news while also earning a bad reputation for rumours, fake news and
outright lies. In order to attract more viewership and generate a greater TRP for their own
profitability, the media channels have started to add an emotional gradient to the high-profile
cases which depends upon the sentiments of their viewership. Due to the cutthroat
competitions among these media channels, exaggerated headlines, distortion and the practise
of misrepresenting facts and imitating judicial processes has grown commonplace in recent
years.
It has become infamous for broadcasting sensitive and confidential information about the
victims and accused to the masses which impedes the functionaries of the justice system.
While also blatantly commenting on the efficiency of the investigative agencies, these
platforms have started to run parallel investigations even before the matter has reached before
courts. This creates much nuisance for the courts and the people involved in those cases as
many versions of the actual story is brought before the public and revelations of sensitive
information takes a mental toll upon the victim and the witnesses. In more serious offences
like rape and sexual
assaults, it has often been observed that the media has revealed the name and other relevant
information about the victim. Although section 228 of IPC1 prohibits disclosing the
survivor’s identity, the media barely gives a second thought before broadcasting the same.
While also building a public opinion on the accused, tarnishing the image of mere suspects
based upon which side there is more public outrage has become a popular means of attaining
viewership. Some famous cases which had been driven by media were the Ram mandir case,
Priyadarshini Mattoo case 2006, Aarushi murder case, the Nirbhaya rape case and Jessica Lal
case. While one of the most recent phenomena of media trial could be seen where rhea
Chakraborty was convicted as a murderer by these media houses all the while when the
matter was sub judice.
Now, the media has metamorphized itself into a 'public court' which can also be referred to as
Janta Adalat which includes performing functions of court so much so that it declares its own
adjudication even before the matter reaches the court. Completely overlooking the vital gap
between an accused and a convict, trial by media also overlooks the primary idea that governs
trial in India which is Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MEDIA TRIALS
The Indian Constitution has no particular provisions for the fundamental rights that
journalists are entitled to. Like every other citizen of India, journalists have the right to
freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a)2, subject to reasonable restrictions.
Even though the Constitution does not directly mention media, Indian law courts, notably the
country's Apex Court, have repeatedly stated that the freedom of speech and expression
enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) is even open to the media. Freedom of speech and expression,
like every other fundamental right, is subject to the reasonable restrictions of article 19 (2),
which states that the state has the power to make any law to impose any restriction on
freedom of speech and expression, and that no one is allowed to use this right against the
nation's sovereignty, integrity, and security, or against any friendly nation with other states,
or against any public order, defamation, or incitement.
The media trial has a subconscious effect on the minds of general public and judges, it creates
room for doubt which might result into the actual verdict being synonymous to the
publications produced by the media houses. Often commenting upon the character of a person
or by broadcasting photographs the media polarizes the viewpoint in favour of one party
which is prejudicial to justice. This adds a lot of pressure on the judges as they might face
criticism if
they deliver the verdict which is not in consonance with what is being speculated by the
media trial.
According to the section 2 of Contempt of Court Act,19713 any publication, whether by
words spoken or written made which prejudices or interferes with due course of judicial
proceedings or obstructs or tends to obstruct with administration of justice is known as
criminal contempt of court. The provision of contempt has its genesis in the principle of
natural justice i.e., every accused has a right to have a fair trial along with the principle that
justice should not be done only but it must also appear that justice have been done. If media
trials continues to be unchecked, a person may be held guilty of an offence, which he has not
actually committed. The basis of criminal jurisprudence arises from presumption of
innocence, and it is an extremely essential component of any judicial system that the accused
should receive a fair trial.
The media is often insensitive towards the mental state of the parties involved in the case
especially towards the accused and the victim. In the landmark judgement of KS Puttaswamy
vs Union of India ,20174, the 9-judge bench stated that right to privacy is a fundamental right
which is an integral part of the article 21 of the part III of the Indian constitution5. It known
for a fact that media has crossed the boundaries of personal sphere of the parties involved in
the case while conducting media trials. This breach of privacy occurs when paparazzi starts
following the parties in their day-to-day life, start reporting and hoarding just outside their
residence. Furthermore, the media would bring to light any minor wrongdoing done by the
accused, as well as his or her character, deceptive images, and so on, most of which are
unrelated to the matter at hand but assist to irreversibly harm the accused's reputation. This
most often results in deteriorating the image of the accused in the eyes of public even if they
are acquitted later by the court. The most recent example of this can be seen in Sushant singh
Rajput suicide case where the paparazzi had rhea Chakraborty followed everywhere and was
declared as a murderer by the media trials6.
The 200th Law Commission report7 recommends restricting the dissemination of material
that is harmful to the accused—a restriction that will take effect as soon as the accused is
arrested. It also suggests that the High Court be given the authority to order the postponement
of publication or telecast in criminal proceedings.
MEDIA TRIAL VS RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL
The media trial often adds a lot of pressure on judges who are always under the constant
scrutiny of the journalists. It also discourages lawyers to take up the case since the media has
already framed the accused free or guilty of any charges before the case even reaches the
court. Judges might steer their adjudication based on the speculation and apprehensions made
by the media along with the twisted facts, therefore, having a detrimental effect on justice.
Some of the most famous cases which were sensationalised by media are discussed below-
The Supreme Court observed in MP Lohia Vs. State of West Bengal 8 that a biased media
material portrays the accused in a negative light without appreciating the court's efforts in
deciding the case critically and analysing all documents submitted by both parties; it obstructs
the administration of smooth justice. The court also warned the press not to conduct their own
trial while the case is still being decided by the court i.e., the matter is sub judice.
The Supreme Court of India held in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Rajendra Jawanmal
Gandhi9 that a judge must shield himself from media pressure and carefully follow the
principles of law. This position was taken to protect press freedom on the grounds that a fair
trial would be decided only by the judge, who would make the final decision regardless of
outside pressure from the media.
In Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) 10, the court held that, despite the importance of print
and electronic media in today's world, it is not only desirable, but also the least that can be
expected of those in positions of power to ensure that media trials do not obstruct fair
investigation by the investigating agency and, more importantly, do not prejudice the
accused's right to a fair trial. If either of these things prevents a judicious and fair inquiry and
trial, it will be a farce of justice.
Another case which was widely covered by media and the media conducted a trial was Dr.
Rajesh Talwar and another V. Central Bureau of Investigation 11 popularly known as Noida
double murder case where the media agencies conducted their own investigations, twisted the
facts and made frivolous remarks about the victim. They also speculated a narrative that
Aarushi and Hemraj were found to be in a compromising position by their parents. With the
rumours, enormous speculation and the public outrage, these media houses declared the
parents as the murderers while the court has already released the couple free of any charges.
The Ayodhya dispute which is one of the most discussed and controversial cases in India.
Ignited by the political and the religious views, media has been conducting trials for long on
this issue, showcasing every minor irrelevant detail, although the case kept on becoming
more controversial and the final judgment came finally after 18 years. During this time only
if the media had restrained itself in conducting trials on its own which just worked as feeling
the disputes between the two communities all over India.
Most recently, the Johnny Depp vs Amber heard12 trial has been famous over all the social
media platforms, while the media had already depicted johnny as the survivor and victim,
amber heard was at a backlash on Instagram, Tik Tok and YouTube. Being outlined as sly
and manipulative, every expression of her was being zoomed, analysed, and commented
upon. These media platforms had already delivered their own verdict based upon their own
set of preposterous reasons long before the actual verdict came out.
CONCLUSION
The role of media is of vital importance in a democratic setup as it acts as a watchdog for the
corruption deeply seated in the country. However, the problems arises when media reaches
out of its own domain and starts meddling with the affairs of court, which results into the
judiciary and the media confronting with each other. The credibility of journalism is called
into question when the well-known media outlets distort facts and exploit emotions of
viewers to obtain more TRP. It has become pertinent that there needs to be some regulation or
a set of guidelines while reporting and commenting upon the cases which are sub judice. It is
the moral duty of media to report the true facts, verify that it has a credible source while
taking utmost care that there is no breach of privacy. They should avoid showing sensitive
information and flashy headlines. One possible method to impose some restrictions on media
trials would be that the judiciary issue a set of regulatory guidelines. Since it is known for a
fact that political parties influence the media channels for their own propaganda, hence any
particular law on regulating media might do more harm than good by affecting the quality of
reporting. Therefore, in the best interest of democracy, they should have some self-regulatory
mechanism instead of being regulated by the state.
REFERENCES
1
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 228
2
Constitution of India, 1950, art 19(1)(a)
3
Contempt of court Act, 1971, s 2
4
Justice KS Puttaswamy and Anr vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors, [2019] 1 SCC 1
5
Constitution of India, 1950, art 21
6
Sonam Saigal, ‘Sushant case: media trial impacts investigation, says HC’ (The Hindu, 19
January 2021) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/sushant-case-media-trial- can-
affect-probe-says-hc/article33600567.ece > accessed 8 October 2022
7
Law Commission of India, Trial by media free speech and fair trial under criminal
procedure code, 1973, (Law Com. No. 200
2006)< https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/rep200.pdf>
8
MP Lohia v State of West Bengal, [2005] 2 SCC 686
9
State of Maharashtra v Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, [1997] 8 SCC 386
10
Sidhartha vashisht alias Manu sharma v State (NCT of Delhi), [2010] 6 SCC 1
11
Dr Rajesh Talwar v Central Bureau of Investigation, [2013] 5 SCC 741
12
Benita Fernando, ‘Explained: The social media trial of Amber Heard’ (The Indian Express,
1 June 2022)<https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-the-social-media-trial- of-
amber-heard-7945993/>accessed 9 October 2022
