MEDIA TRIAL:

IS IT GOOD
OR BAD?
Submitted to:

Ms Pooja Bhardwar

Submitted by:

Surya Sharma
Semester: 2nd
Section: B [b.a ll.b (Hons.)]
Roll Number: 100/13

Media is regarded as one of the pillars of democracy. Media has wide ranging
roles in the society. 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.
Freedom of media is the freedom of people as they should be informed of public
matters. It is thus needless to emphasise that a free and a healthy press is
indispensable to the functioning of democracy. In a democratic set up there has
to be active participation of people in all affairs of their community and the
state. It is their right to be kept informed about the current political social,
economic and cultural life as well as the burning topics and important issues of
the day in order to enable them to consider forming broad opinion in which they
are being managed, tackled and administered by the government and their
functionaries. To achieve this objective people need a clear and truthful account
of events, so that they may form their own opinion and offer their own
comments and viewpoints on such matters and issues and select their future
course of action. The right to freedom of speech and expression in contained in
Article 19 of the Constitution. However, freedom is not absolute as it is bound
by the sub clause (2) of the same article. However the right to freedom and
speech and expression does not embrace the freedom to commit contempt of
court.
In a country like India where Article 19(1) of the Constitution itself remains an
important aspect for widespread engagement within a democratic atmosphere,
media is considered to be one of the freest bodies in terms of legal constraints.
Freedom of speech and expression incorporated in the Constitution has been
supporting media in performing its business well. But at the same time media
has reincarnated itself into a Public Court and has started interfering into court
proceedings. It has not only overlooked the vital gap between an accused and a
Media Trial: Is it good or bad?
1

convict but also forgot the golden principle of presumption of innocence until
proven guilty and guilty beyond reasonable doubt. These days they have
come up with a different concept altogether of Media Trial where the media
does a separate investigation, builds up a public opinion against the accused
even before the court takes cognizance of the case. By this way, it prejudices the
public and sometimes even judges and as a result the accused is presumed
criminal and is devoid of all his rights and liberty.
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. The trial by media is definitely an undue interference in the process of
justice delivery. Before delving into the issue of justifiability of media trial it
would be pertinent to first try to define what actually the trial by media means.
Trial is a word which is associated with the process of justice. It is the essential
component on any judicial system that the accused should receive a fair trial.
Now excessive publicity in the media about the suspect or an accused before
trial prejudices a fair trial or results in characterizing him as a person who has
indeed committed the crime, it amounts to undue interference with the
administration of justice, which would result in contempt of court against the
media. But the sad part being the rules designed to regulate journalist conduct
are inadequate to prevent the encroachment of civil rights.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and
expression and Article 19(2) permits reasonable restriction to be imposed by the
statute for the purpose of various matters including contempt of court. Article
19(2) does not refer to administration of justice but interference in the
administration of justice is clearly referred to in the definition of criminal
contempt in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and in Section 3
Media Trial: Is it good or bad?
2

thereof as amounting to contempt. Therefore the provision of that Act impose

reasonable restriction on freedom of speech, such restriction would be valid.
As per the Indian Criminal Justice system the guilt is to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and the law is governed by senses and not by emotions. The
media while portraying our emotions forgets that it puts immense pressure on
the judge presiding over the case. This golden rule stated above changes to
declare a person guilty right at the time of arrest. The role of media is to report
facts or news and raise public issues; it is not there to pass judgments.
The case that draws media attention emanates from what are believed to be
three primary sources: the prosecution, the defense and the media itself.
The prosecutor, in announcing an indictment, leaking one, or even stating that
an investigation is in process, can depict a defendant in such a way as to
materially prejudice his rights to a fair trial. This, in turn, has often resulted in
defense attorneys trying to combat fire with fire, which after a while begins to
create some- what of a circus like atmosphere.
Usually, however, it is the press whether it be the printed media or the electronic
media, which seizes on a particular case and catapults it into a national story.
Say for example the famous Arushi and Hemraj Murder Case1 the Supreme
Court of India on 6th August 2008 sharply criticized the media for acting as if it
was a super investigating agency and for tarnishing the reputation of the doctor
couple (Rajesh and Nupur Talwar) whose daughter Arushi Talwar had been
murdered.
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. The most objectionable part, and unfortunate too,
1 Sessions Trial No. 477 of 2012

Media Trial: Is it good or bad?

3

of the recently incarnated role of media is that the coverage of a sensational

crime and its adducing of evidence begins very early, mostly even before the
person who will eventually preside over the trial even takes cognizance of the
offence, and secondly that the media is not bound by the traditional rules of
evidence which regulate what material can, and cannot be used to convict an
accused. In fact, the Right to Justice of a victim can often be compromised in
other ways as well, especially in Rape and Sexual Assault cases, in which often,
the past sexual history of a prosecutrix may find its way into newspapers.
Secondly, the media treats seasoned criminal and the ordinary one, sometimes
even the innocents, alike without any reasonable discrimination. They are
treated as a television item keeping at stake the reputation and image. Even if
they are acquitted by the court on the grounds of proof beyond reasonable
doubt, they cannot resurrect their previous image. Such kind of exposure
provided to them is likely to jeopardize all these cherished rights accompanying
liberty.
The Supreme Court of India in a case2 explained, a fair trial obviously would
mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of
judicial claim. 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.
Media trial even has started creating pressure on the lawyers to not take up
cases of accused, thus forcing these accused to go to trial without any defense.
This is against the principle of Natural Justice. For an instance, when eminent
lawyer Ram Jethmalani decided to defend Manu Sharma, a prime accused in a
murder case3, he was subject to public derision. Media channel came up with
quotes like defend the indefensible. While at the same time Gopal
2 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [(2004) 4 SCC 158]
3 State vs Siddarth Vashisth & Manu Sharma 90 (2001) DLT 548

Media Trial: Is it good or bad?

4

Subramaniam was appearing for the state and the case of Manu was handed to
some mediocre lawyer. Media went hammer in tongues when Mr. Jethmalani
took the case and posed him as a villain. Dont we want to give equal
opportunity to the defense to prove its case, or have we lost faith in the
judiciary? The media have to understand their limit before it becomes too late.
Media trial is also an appreciable effort along with the revolutionary sting
operation as it keeps a close watch over the investigations and activities of
police administration and executives. But there must be a reasonable restriction
over its arena and due emphasis should be given to the fair trial and court
procedure must be respected with adequate sense of responsibility. Media
should keep this in mind that whatever they publish has a great impact over the
spectator. Therefore considering it as a moral duty it should come up with the
truth that too at the right time. Although the print media has made itself
compliance with the legal guidance and ethical limits but the electronic media is
still experimenting and is relying on trial and error method for what to show
and what not to. Its high time for the electronic media to regulate itself by
having self-censored guidelines to be put in place to retain a complete free
press.
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 Procedure4. The report is still pending
in the Parliament. It will be available to the public once it is presented in the
Parliament.
4 (Amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971) [Report number 200
prepared in 2006]

Media Trial: Is it good or bad?

5

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 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.
What will an ideal proposition is to not allowing the media trial at this moment.
Its 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.

Media Trial: Is it good or bad?

6

REFERENCES
Books
1. Lloyd E. Chiasson, The Press on Trial: Crimes and Trials as Media
Events (Contributions to the Study of Mass Media and
Communications), Praeger.
2. Lisa M. Cuklanz, Rape on Trial: How the Mass Media Construct
Legal Reform and Social Change, University of Pennsylvania
Press.
3. Lloyd Chiasson, The Press on Trial: Crimes and Trials as Media
Events, Greenwood Publishing Group.
Websites
1. www.lawinfowire.com
2. www.lawyersclubindia.com
3. scholar.google.co.in/
4. books.google.co.in
5. www.indiankanoon.org

Media Trial: Is it good or bad?

7