Essay on MEDIA TRIALS

by Sanjana Sukhwani

Media has been titled as the fourth pillar of a modern democracy, with the power to
acquaint the masses with every drop of information available and subsequently, mould
public opinion. The Indian media has gradually developed as the primary disseminator over
the past decades with innumerable newspapers, magazines and other forms of
newsgathering available in vernacular languages. News channels, infotainment apps, and
the internet nexus have augmented the reach of media.

Mass media has transformed from being a medium of communicating news to a symbol of
change, creating an unprecedented responsibility on it to cautiously air any information. The
American law provides for sequestering the jury and the judge during a trial to prevent them
from getting influenced from media trials. However, there is no such law in India.

Media has transformed into a Janta ki Adalat', with media trials not only representing a
biased opinion before the verdict is declared but also creating a compulsion on the courts to
resolve a case in accordance with this opinion. Whether it is the infamous 2-G Spectrum
scam, coal allocation scam, the recent Lalu Prasad Yadav's benami transaction scandal, or
MallyaGate, the media put these cases under the public guillotine prior to completion of
their trials.

In Aarushi Talwar murder case, the media branded her parents as being guilty of her murder
when the case was still under-trial. The thin line between 'innocent until proven guilty' and
'guilt beyond reasonable doubt' is easily crossed which jeopardises a trial in process. It is
extremely difficult to prove that a judge has been influenced by the news. Similarly, it is
equally difficult to prove that the judge hasn't been keeping a track of the news prior or
during the trial.

As the famous saying goes with great power comes great responsibility', the unhindered
freedom of speech given to the media is required to be heedfully exercised. The 'self-
imposed' code that prevents journalists from reporting sub judice or under-trial matters has
been long forgotten. Conducting parallel trial of sub judice matters hinders with a judge's
ability to decide a matter on its merits and the judge that decides against this 'public or
media verdict' is termed as biased or corrupt.
The constant scrutiny and updates on a sub judice matter creates a clouded environment,
leaving the case in a perilous state. The Delhi High Court has also observed that "media
tends to influence judges by subconsciously creating a pressure" when questioned about
the controversial documentary on Nirbhaya gangrape case.

When every piece of information broadcasted and published by a media channel has the
power to influence the decision of a judge, there is not much room for experimenting and
trial and error. It is, therefore, for administration of justice that any publication prejudicial in
nature having the capacity to affect the mind of a sitting judge requires to be impeded.
Journalism on sub judice matters and criticism of the way judiciary administers justice often
borderlines at contempt of court.

Media is bold! It is powerful! Media is a callous reality! Media is exposing scams! Media is
change! I do not condemn the trial by media as it hanged the true convicts who proved
innocent by corrupt & tampered evidences in the court premises. Besides, I would criticize
the adverse effect of media trial on the reputation of a person in the society. Media should
maintain its code of laws and ethics, social responsibility and credibility by not interfering in
the matters of court so early. Instead, should do the research, keep a check on high profile
cases, find the evidences and keep it to them until and unless they find the truth
suppressing. Trial by Media is a requisite in this 21st century where violence, crime &
corruption are at its peak and where human life is not priceless anymore!
Media wields enormous powers that can subliminally affect a case. This often raises the
question whether media, through its participative journalism, has become voice of masses
or the noise that subconsciously sways the judge presiding over a matter that it has publicly
tried prior to its conclusion in the court.