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

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].
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].

IMPACT OF MEDIA TRIALS

1. 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.”

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.
2. 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].

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]
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:

1. Scandalizing
2. Prejudicing trial, and
3. 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]

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.

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..”

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].

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MEDIA TRIALS

1. 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].
 2. 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.
3. 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]
 4. 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]
5. 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]
CONCLUSION

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.