Role Of Media And Judicial Intervention In Crime

Introduction:
The media has a significant impact on the general populace in the country.
Newspapers, news channels, radio, and television not only disseminate
information but also aid in the control of tales that the public may subsequently
discuss. Prosecutors and attorneys face a difficult task because crimes are widely
covered.
Regardless of what the media is covering, judges and juries are obligated to
render an impartial decision. The media, on the other hand, may exert influence
on police personnel while they are disseminating case-related material. TRIAL BY
MEDIA is a popular concept in the twenty-first century that refers to the impact of
television, newspapers, and other media on a person's reputation.
The Jessica Lal Case brought the influence of the media to light. The media's role
was also discussed during the Priyadarshini Mattoo case and others when the
media was blamed for influencing the court's decision. The Indian Constitution
makes no provision for a media trial. The media refers to Article 19 of the
constitution, which states that the public has the right to freedom of speech and
expression. Although Article 19 states that the public has the right to expression
and speech, the media trials are not included. The media has a significant impact
on political and social disclosures. Around the world, the media is one of the most
crucial pillars of democracy.

What is Media Trial:

When a critical issue is brought before the court, there is an expected rise in
interest among the public. Always on the lookout for exciting news, the media,
including newspapers, television stations, and news websites, begin posting their
own versions of events. It's known as investigative journalism, and it's legal in
India. "Media Trial" or "Trial by Media" refers to the impact of media coverage on
an individual via newspapers and television in developing an impression of
innocence or guilt before a court of law delivers its decision.
Effect Of Media Trial:
The consequences of the calamity known as "trial by media" are enormous.
Unwarranted media exposure, without a doubt, has an impact on the outcome of
criminal prosecutions. Criminal laws in democratic countries around the world are
designed to ensure that the defendant receives a fair and impartial trial. Judges
are expected to make decisions entirely on the evidence given at trial, and they
are not allowed to have preconceived notions about whether or not the
defendant is guilty.

Effect On Judiciary:
Even judges are subject to criticism, which might be directed at their judicial
conduct or their conduct in a purely personal capacity. However, it is a cause for
concern when the criticism levelled against judges is unfounded or ill-informed, as
this has the potential to erode public confidence in the court.
A judge must defend himself against media pressure that can 'unknowingly' affect
juries or judges, and judges, like all humans, are susceptible to such indirect
pressures, at least subconsciously or unconsciously.
In the Nanavati case, for example, the media made a big deal out of it, and there
was a lot of coverage that was later said to have swayed the jurors' opinions. The
narrative was published by R. K. Karanjia, a Parsi who owned and controlled the
weekly newspaper Blitz, which publicly supported Nanavati and depicted him as a
victimized husband whose naive wife had been influenced by a rich playboy.
When one examines the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petrochemicals v.
Proprietor of Indian Express1 in light of P.C. Sen's decision, it appears that the
Court considered that judges are likely to be "subconsciously impacted" by media
coverage. Parties have a fundamental right to a fair trial in a court of law, before
an unbiased tribunal that is not swayed by press dictation or public outcry. The
democratic framework is built on two basic foundations: fairness and equity. The
unfair distribution of blame is tantamount to a rejection of a fair trial. Because
media is so widespread in our daily lives, judges can't help but be influenced by it.

1 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1351834/
Effect On Accused:
If the media has already painted a suspect 2 or accused as guilty before the trial in
court, there is a risk that the accused may be severely prejudiced.
Even if a suspect or accused person is cleared by the Court after due process, the
acquittal may not be beneficial in rehabilitating the accused's reputation in
society.
Exaggerated and unreasonable media coverage, describing the defendant as
guilty even while the verdict is still pending, amounts to improper influence over
the "administration of justice," necessitating a contempt of court action against
the media.

Media trial v Freedom of Speech:

India's Constitution provides freedom of speech and expression under Article
19(1)(a). Freedom of expression has a critical role in the shaping of public opinion
on economic, social, and political issues.
In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 3, 1985, the
Supreme Court of India's Venkataramiah, J. held that press freedom is at the
centre of social and political discourse. In the developing world, when all channels
of modern communication, such as television and other forms, are not available
to all sections of society, the press has taken on the role of public educator and
makes education feasible on a global scale through imparting formal and non-
formal education. The Supreme Court's comment above demonstrates that press
freedom is critical to the democratic process's proper functioning. It is self-
evident that every citizen has the right to engage in the democratic process,
which is defined as government of, by, and for the people. Every individual must
have access to a free and open discussion of public issues in order to exercise his
freedom to make an informed decision. This explains the constitutional
perspective on press freedom in India.

2 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97339536/
3 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/223504/
Media trial and its interference with the judicial process:

Fair trial-
A fair trial is one that is conducted by a judge in an impartial manner. The
procedure outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as the
current criminal justice system, play a role in determining whether a trial is fair.
Even an accused person's right to life and personal liberty cannot be denied in
India.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution makes a fair trial a part of life and personal
liberty. The right to a fair trial4 includes the right to have one's case heard by an
impartial or prejudiced judge.
The media sensation has a significant impact on the trial. The trial by media, often
known as the media trial, has a negative impact on and obstructs a free and fair
trial for the goal of delivering justice. In many circumstances, the media goes
beyond its freedom of speech and expression by broadcasting and publishing
materials that are detrimental to the parties' interests, such as the parties'
character, pictures, witness criticism, and so on.
Because, to be absolutely honest, no one can be completely neutral and
unbiased, a media trial may be adverse to the parties' case or may affect the
court's decision. It is human tendency to be biassed in favour of a particular point
of view, and even a court might fall victim to this.
The media presents the case to the public in such a way that if a judge orders
against the "media verdict," he or she may appear to many as corrupt or biassed,
judges begin to consider media criticism when making decisions. This is why, in
most high-profile cases, the media verdict becomes the final verdict in trial courts.

Right to be Represented:
Another element influenced by the media trial is the accused's right to a fair trial.
Sometimes, the media trials put a lot of pressure on lawyers not to take a certain
party's case, causing the accused party to go through the trials without a defence.

4 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121534483/
When the prominent lawyer Ram Jethmalani agreed to defend the prime accused
of the case, Manu Sharma, in the Jessica Lal murder case, he faced public
criticism. In another case, lawyer Kamini Jaiswal was dubbed an "anti-national"
for supporting SAR Geelani, a professor at Delhi University who was accused of
the 2001 Parliament attack. Prashant Bhushan, the lawyer who appeared on
behalf of Yakub Memon, was also opposed.

Law Commission 200th Report:

The following recommendations were made in this report, which was released in
August 2006 under the chairmanship of Justice M. Jagannath a Rao:

To prevent the dissemination of anything that is damaging to an accused person's

reputation—a restriction that will come from the mine of the arrest.
The time of an accused's arrest should be the starting point of a criminal case, not
the submission of the charge sheet. The idea behind such an amendment is that it
would prevent the case from being prejudiced or prejudged.
To address the negative impact of sensationalised press stories on the
administration of justice.
In criminal cases, the High Court has the authority to order the telecast or
publication to be postponed, as well as to restrict the media from resuming the
telecast or publication.

Effect of Media trial on some prominent cases in recent times:

Noida Double Murder Case5:

A fourteen-year-old girl named Aarushi Talwar and a forty-five-year-old man
named Hemraj Baanjade were murdered in this case.
There was huge media coverage of the case. Both the print and electronic media
overloaded with the news of Aarushi Talwar's murder in the month of May 2008.

5 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16210461/
It was very shocking to see the media's insensitivity while reporting about the
incident. The media began simulating objectionable scenes of Aarushi and Hemraj
together and Rajesh coming with a golf club and hitting them. They were trying to
portray Rajesh as the murderer without any Court verdict. Many spoke about the
character of the minor girl, who already died.
Even some media outlets stooped so low that they continued to talk about wife
swapping and how it led to Aarushi's death when she found out about her
parents' dark secrets All of this had a negative impact on the little girl's
reputation, her family's reputation, and the reputations of others who were
implicated in such wrongdoings by the media.

Delhi Rape Case:

The Brutal gang rape of a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern on the night of
December 16, 2012, in a private bus in which she was travelling with her male
acquaintance, who was tortured and beaten in addition to being raped. Six men
on the bus, including the driver, raped her and battered her buddy. She was
admitted to the hospital, and after eleven days, she was transferred to a hospital
for an emergency, where she died two days later.
This incident inflamed extensive national and international coverage. The incident
was criticized widely, both in India as well as abroad. Thereafter, there were
multiple protests in different parts of the country against the central and state
governments for failing to provide proper security for women. Due to so much
outrage in the media, there were multiple amendments in the laws including the
Juvenile Justice Act, where for the heinous crime the age for punishment had
been reduced to eighteen to sixteen.

Conclusion:

There have been countless occasions where the media has been blamed and
accused of conducting the accused's trial by issuing a "Verdict" based on their
findings prior to the Court's decision. It is critical that the trial be conducted by
the Court rather than the media. The media trial is unquestionably an
unwarranted intrusion into the justice-delivery process.

When it comes to drafting media rules, the legislature has a big job to do to
ensure that their freedom isn't stifled. The media has the right to discuss and
comment on case rulings, but they do not have the right or freedom to begin a
trial on topics that are still under appeal. Before beginning the trial of a pending
case, the right of the accused to a fair trial always takes precedence over media
freedom. The goal of justice is hampered by the media trial. When it comes to
drafting media rules, the legislature has a big job to do to ensure that their
freedom isn't stifled. The media has the right to discuss and comment on case
rulings, but they do not have the right or freedom to begin a trial on topics that
are still under appeal. Before beginning the trial of a pending case, the right of the
accused to a fair trial always takes precedence over media freedom. The goal of
justice is hampered by the media trial.

References:

https://www.csirs.org.in/uploads/paper_pdf/role-of-media-in-the-indian-
justice-system-with-special-reference.pdf

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4292-trial-by-media-a-threat-
to-our-judicial-system-.html

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4000-media-trial-does-it-have-
an-effect-on-our-justice-system-.html

https://blog.ipleaders.in/modern-media-and-its-effect-on-high-profile-cases/
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6601-role-of-media-in-
juvenile-justice.html

https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/783284.pdf