RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND MEDIA LAWS

MEDIA TRIALS AND JUDICIARY

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Mrs. Sugandha Tamanna Goyal

BA.LLB (Hons)

111/15

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Success comes to those who strive for it. To achieve one’s goal, one puts in a lot of hard work
and efficiency. In this process, one takes all the encouraging and helping hands of the people.
We would like to convey my heart full thanks to Mrs. Sugandha, our teacher and guide, who
guided us through this project and also gave valuable suggestions and guidance for completing
this project. She provided us with this opportunity and whose immaculate knowledge was a key
in completion of this project. We owe my regards to the entire faculty of the Department of
Legal Studies, from where we have learnt the basics of Law and whose informal discussions,
intellectual support and able guidance was a beacon light for me in the entire duration of this
work. We would also like to thank staff of the UILS library and A.C. Joshi Library for availing
us all the relevant data. So, with the concrete efforts and utmost honest intentions, we hereby
present this project.

Thanks!

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................4
IMPACT OF MEDIA TRIALS.......................................................................................................5
 MEDIA TRIALS VS. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION........................5

 MEDIA TRIAL VS. FAIR TRIAL.....................................................................................10

 MEDIA TRIAL VS. RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED.....................................................13

IS MEDIA TRIAL A CONTEMPT OF COURT?...........................................................................14
REGULATORY MEASURES......................................................................................................15
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................18
BAREACTS..................................................................................................................................18
WEBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................18

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION

There is no denying the fact when talking about the importance of media especially in the Indian
context whether it comes to bringing the news before the masses or changing the opinions of the
people in the way they perceive things. Media as we all know is regarded as the fourth estate or
the fourth pillar to the democracy. The term trial by media is itself a misnomer as the term
“trial” has nowhere been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or the Code of Civil
Procedure (CPC).

But the term trial in normal parlance means a proceeding before a court of law in order to obtain
justice, thereby meaning that media cannot take in the same role. But media is often seen
undertaking this role of taking up the trials just like an judicial forum and then even passing a
verdict as per the facts of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has time and again taken
a note of the same and even highlight the consequences of such trials by media in these
following words:-

“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 is wrong. During high
publicity 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 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” 1

The same was also reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra
Jawanmal Gandhi2

“A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of the rule of law. It can
well lead to miscarriage of justice”

But when a sensational criminal case comes up for investigation before the police or for
adjudication in a subsequent trial before the Court, the usual question asked is “Is the media

1
R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court {(2009) 8 SCC 106}
2
(1997) 8 SCC 386 AIR 1997 SC 3986

4|Page
expected to be a silent spectator insensitive to the happenings around and failing to quench the
public curiosity about the case ?”

IMPACT OF MEDIA TRIALS

 MEDIA TRIALS VS. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION
It is to be kept in mind that people are the only censors of their own representatives who rule
them and, therefore, people should be given complete information of the affairs of the
representatives through the channels of public domain. It is true that a free, independent and
fearless Press is the sine qua non of a vibrant democratic society in a free country where there is
no dictatorship or throttling of dissemination of news. It is the right to know of the public which
is served by the print and electronic media. The High Court of Kerala highlighting the same in
Re M.V. Jayarajan3 observed thus:-

“The existence of a free press is an inevitable necessity in maintaining parliamentary

democracy. The Press occupies an unenviable position because the media are the eyes and ears
of the general public. They act on behalf of the general public. Their right to know and their
right to publish is neither more nor less than that of the general public for whom they are
trustees”

The above case was one in which the media was both appreciated as well as criticized. It was
appreciated for the salutary role in bringing the issue of contempt of court to the public domain
and criticized for its role in holding a discussion and public debate of the issues which were sub-
judice. Freedom of the Press is thus a derivative of the citizen’s fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression as enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. This means
that the media does not enjoy any power larger than that of the general public whom they
represent. 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

3
1988 (3) All E R 545

5|Page
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.

In an increasingly competitive market for grabbing the attention of viewers and readers, media
reports often turn to distortion of facts. 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. 4
Moreover, the liberty of speech and expression should recall that the said liberty is
constitutionally hedged in by the limits laid down in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India.

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 intervention of media helped the judiciary
impart justice to gone but victimized souls are: 

PRIYADARSHINI MATTOO CASE

Priyadarshini Mattoo was a 23-year old law student, living in Delhi. She was found raped and
murdered at her New Delhi residence on 23rd January, 1996. The prime accused in this case was
Santosh Kumar Singh, Mattoo’s senior in her college. Singh had been harassing and stalking
Mattoo, both “in person and over the phone” for about two years prior to killing her in the most
gruesome way. It is also said that Mattoo had filed a police complaint against Singh and was
provided with a personal security officer, after Mattoo stated in her complaint that Singh was
stalking her for quite some days. However, this did not have any desired effect as Singh
belonged to an influential family; his father J.P. Singh was the then Inspector General of Police
of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. In the duration of the trial, he served as the Joint
Commissioner of Police in Delhi, the very city where the crime was committed. On the morning
of 23rd January, 1996, Santosh Singh was seen knocking on Mattoo’s house, in the Vasant Kunj
area of New Delhi. Singh was let in by a domestic help of the house. He entered the house saying
4
http://www.civilservicestimes.co.in/editorial-/current-national-issues/416-trial-by-media-looking-beyond-the-pale-
of-legality-.html (last visited on 24/10/2018 at 11:57)

6|Page
that he wanted a compromise in the legal complaints that Mattoo had charged against him.
Consequently, he raped her, strangled her with an electric wire and battered her head nearly14
times with a motorcycle helmet. In the aftermath of the horrific crime, Santosh Singh was
arrested after the complaints filed against him by Mattoo, witness testimonies, DNA and
fingerprint samples, broken motorcycle helmet found in the scene of the crime, and other
evidences. These were enough to nail Santosh Singh as the one guilty of the crime. However, on
3rd December, 1999; Additional Sessions Judge G.P. Thareja acquitted Singh by giving him
benefit of doubt. This was followed by widespread mass protests and media arose to this
occasion. Media used its powerful tool of investigative journalism to find out the lapses in the
murder case and very soon it was bringing into the public’s notice, how justice was denied to
Priyadarshini Mattoo. This created a massive wave of uproar in the masses who were demanding
that the case be reopened. The widespread public outrage was creating intense pressure on the
CBI and the Indian judiciary. On 29th February, 200 the CBI ultimately submitted an appeal
against the verdict of the District Court in the Delhi High Court. On 17th October, 2006, the
Delhi High Court pronounced Santosh Kumar Singh guilty under sections 376 (rape) and 302
(murder) under the Indian Penal Code and was awarded death sentence. The Court had passed
this verdict based on numerous hard-hitting evidences. The Court also blamed the inaction and
partiality of the Delhi Police in coming to the aid of Mattoo when she had filed a complaint
against Singh as his father; J.P. Singh was the then senior IPS officer Director General of Delhi
Police. However, on 6th October 2010, the death sentence was reduced to life sentence after
Santosh Singh filed a plea in the Supreme Court.5

JESSICA LAL CASE

Jessica Lal murder case has created sensational waves in the society. All this is owing to the
wide publicity given by media to this case. Jessica Lal was murdered by Manu Sharma, a
socialite in Delhi when she refused him to sell a drink in the late hours. When the legal
proceedings were initiated, the witness has turned hostile and there was no circumstantial
evidence, the case was ordered to be shut. But by the time, media has given a wide publicity to
the incident. There was huge outrage among the public. In the initial stages of police
interrogation of Sharma, he admits to have shot at Lal. This tape was never produced at the court

5
http://jlsr.thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Monisha (last accessed on 30th Oct,18 at 11:00 pm)

7|Page
at the time of the proceedings which led to Sharma denying that he had shot at Lal. However, it
was acquired and aired by NDTV which bared the truth. This led to public outcry who demanded
that justice has been denied. NDTV channel received thousands of text messages from various
people urging that immediate action be taken against Sharma and the other accused. People were
losing faith in the Indian judiciary and the media had thrown light on this very fact. India arose
to the situation and very soon people from various walks of life were standing up for the rights
denied to Jessica Lal. On 9th September, 2006; news magazine Tehelka organized a sting
operation on the witnesses of the case in which they revealed that Vinod Sharma had bribed them
hefty amounts of money in order to stay mum about the truth in court. This sting operation was
aired by news channel STAR News. The immense public support and the growing pressure from
media led the Delhi High Court to take notice and the case was reopened after an appeal by the
Delhi Police. Manu Sharma was finally pronounced guilty of killing Jessica Lal and he was
given life sentence on 20th December, 2006. The efforts of the media helped the case to be
reopened and justice was finally delivered.

NITISH KATARA MURDER CASE 

Nitish Katara was a 24-year-old Indian business executive in Delhi, who was murdered on 17
February 2002, by Vikas Yadav, the son of influential politician D. P.Yadav. Nitish had recently
graduated from the Institute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad where, he had fallen in love
with his classmate Bharti Yadav, sister of Vikas. The trial court held that Nitish's murder was
an honour killing because the family did not approve their relationship. Vikas was later found
guilty by the trial Court and awarded life sentence on 30 May 2008. On April 2, 2014, Delhi
High Court upheld the trial court verdict of life imprisonment to the accused. On February 6,
2015, Delhi High Court on re-appeal on death sentence, extended sentence as 25 years rigorous
life imprisonment without remittance. On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court sentenced Vikas
Yadav the 25 yearsof imprisonment without remission. This case was again given enough media
attension for involvement of family of D.P Yadav who himself is accused of having ‘mafia’
relations. But media made sure that justice is provided to Nitish and his family and Vikas doesn’t
go away with advantage of an influential father.

8|Page
 BIJAL JOSHI RAPE CASE

Twenty-four-year-old Bijal Joshi committed suicide on January 7, 2004 after she was gang-raped
and tortured by her boyfriend Sajal Jain, 32, a father of two who befriended her and invited her
to Hotel Ashok Palace in Ahmedabad to celebrate the New Year and his friends.

In a suicide note which Bijal left behind, she named Sajal and his four friends for raping and
torturing her. Her body had borne several bite marks.

Sajal is son of industrialist and owner of Delhi's Apollo Millennium Hospital, S K Jain.
He was arrested on charges of rape and abetting suicide from Apollo Hospital in New Delhi,
where he was admitted in the ICU feigning food poisoning to try and evade arrest. He has been
in police custody since then.
Bijal - who had filed a police complaint against Sajal and his friends - killed herself for she
believed the police were favouring the accused.
Six policemen, including an inspector of Shahibaug police station, were suspended for their
laxity in the case in 2004. An Ahmedabad sessions court had convicted all of the five accused,

The media however drew flak in the reporting of murder of AARUSHI TALWAR, in 2008, arose
as sensational news in media. This was a double murder case in which a doctor couple has killed
their fourteen year daughter and servant. This incident was quoted as honour killing by media.
Unlike the other cases, here the media had a negative impact on the case. The television channels
always cooked up the matters to increase their popularity among the masses leading to utter
confusion. Media made every effort to highlight the elements of illicit relationships, adultery,
fornication, mystery and honour killing in a bid to challenge the popularity of daily soaps. The
civil society needs to question if the media and all agencies involved should be allowed to get
away after besmirching our memory of a 14 year old who cannot even defend herself from the
accusations hurled at her. Media 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 and in latest judgement both the parents are aquitted
against all the charges levied against them.6

6
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/media-trials-india (last visited on 22/10/2018 at 11:57)

9|Page
The observations by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Suo Motu proceedings7 are
apposite in this context. This is what the Delhi High Court said:-

“We do appreciate that in respect of some cases (largely criminal cases) the justice delivery
system in our country progresses virtually at a snail’s pace and often an innocent person has no
real remedy available to him, if he in framed in a matter, or is subjected to a ‘trial by media’. As
a result, seldom does anyone approach a Court of law for relief either by way of an injunction or
for damages in a case of ‘trial by media’. Such being the reality, we are of the opinion that the
Courts have a great responsibility and, therefore, need to be far more vigilant and pro-active in
protecting the rights and reputation of an individual from an unwarranted ‘trial by media’. In a
sense, the Courts have to energize the rule of law. While this may add to the burden of our
criminal Courts, we are of the view that it is imperative for the Courts to protect a citizen from
what may appear to be victimization. This is certainly the duty if not an obligation of Courts.
This is all the more important in a pending matter. For example, if a person is arrested on the
suspicion of having committed a crime, it is not the function of the media to ‘declare’ him (by
implication) innocent or guilty. That is within the exclusive domain of the judiciary. But if the
accused is subjected to a ‘trial’, either through the print or audio-visual medium, it may
subconsciously affect the judgment of the Judge, and that may well be to the prejudice of the
accused, which is, in our justice delivery system, presumed innocent until proven guilty. In such
a situation, the Judge must be pro-active by restraining the media from carrying out a parallel
trial. Otherwise our criminal justice delivery system will be completely subverted.”

 MEDIA TRIAL VS. FAIR TRIAL

Further, trial by media has also 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.8

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
7
2009 (1) KLD 133
8
Right to Privacy in Sting Operations of Media

10 | P a g e
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.9

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.10

In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat11, 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.” A fair trial has two objects in view. It
must be fair, not only to the accused but also to the prosecution. The trial must be judged from
this duel point of view. It is, therefore, necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over
a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that
a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the
Judge has to perform. A miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less
than from the conviction of the innocent. If unmerited acquittals become the general rule they
tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law.

9
Ibid
10
Supra note 4
11
(2005) 2 SCC (Jour) 75

11 | P a g e
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. Similarly there have been a plethora of cases in India on the point.

In State of Maharashtra vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi12, 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 v. Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar
Association and Others13, observed that for rule of law and orderly society, a free responsible

12
1997 (8) SCC 386
13
(2005) 6 SCC 109

12 | P a g e
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

Moreover, 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. 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 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
13 | P a g e
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 as either as corrupt or biased to many people.14

IS MEDIA TRIAL A CONTEMPT OF COURT?

Not only that Trial by Media is Contempt of Court and needs to be punished. The Contempt of
Court Act defines contempt by identifying it as civil15 and criminal16. 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’. 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.  17, 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.”

In Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration) and Ors 18 it was held by the Delhi High
Court that:

14
Supra note 4
15
Section 2(b)
16
Section 2(a)
17
AIR1975 AP 30
18
1996 CriLJ 3944.

14 | P a g e
“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.”

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 Ltd19 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.

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.

19
(1995) 1 SCC 501

15 | P a g e
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“.

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. 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. 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.

16 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. DD BASU, Commentary on the Constitutional of India, Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, (2011)
2. Dr. M.P JAIN, Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 6th Edition
(2010)

BAREACTS
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA as amended by The Constitutional (One Hundredth
Amendment) Act, 2015

WEBLIOGRAPHY
1. https://indiankanoon.org/
2. https://www.lawctopus.com/
3. https://www.manupatrafast.com/

17 | P a g e