Research iPaper

On

Relevancy iof imedia itrials iin ijudicial iproceedings: iA iCritical iAnalysis

Introduction i

Access ito iinformation iis iessential ito ithe ihealth iof idemocracy. iThe irule iof ilaw imay
ibe ifurther iinstitutionalized iby isupport ifor ian iindependent imedia ithat ikeeps ia icheck
ion ithe ijudiciary, ireports ion ithe icourt, iand ipromotes ia ilegal ienabling ienvironment
isuitable ifor iPress ifreedom. iThe ipress iand ithe imedia ihave ibeen irecognized ias ithe
igreatest iinfluencencing ifactors.

iThe ipower iwith ithem icarries iwith iit ian iobligation ito iact iwith iresponsibility iand
icreativity ibut ithere iare isymptoms iof inegativity iin ithe imedia. iMedia, iin igeneral,
ienjoys ithe ifundamental iright iof ifree ispeech iwhich iis igiven ito iindividual icitizen. iBut
imedia iis imore ipowerful ithan ian iordinary icitizen. iTherefore iit ican iact ipowerfully. iIt
ican igather iinformation iand ispread ithem. iBut iPress ioften igoes ibeyond ithis ifunction
iby itaking ithe irole iof iwatch idog. iFreedom iof iPress istarted iwith idissemination iof
irelevant iinformation iabout ipublic iaffairs ior ithe ihappenings ithat ihad ia idirect ibearing
ion ipublic iwelfare. i

Today, ithe iscene ihas ichanged. iWith ivarious inews ichannels ieverything ithat iinterests
ipeople ihas ia inews ivalue. iWhatever inon-fictional idrama imakes ipeople istay iglued ito
itheir itelevision isets iis i'news'. iIt imay ibe ian iold iman ideclaring ithat ihe iwould idie iat
ia icertain ihour ion ia icertain iday ior ia iman ieating iraw iflesh iof isnakes; iit iis iall inews
iso ilong ias iit igrabs ithe iattention iof ithe ipeople. iThe iprofession ijournalism ihas ilost iits
isanctity iand inow ithe imantra iis i'News iis iwhat isells". i

The iproblem iwith ithe imedia's ijudicial iactivism iis ithat iit ionly icampaigns ifor icases ithat
iappeal ito iits imarket iand iits iimagination. iMedia's iinvolvement iwith ia ilegal iprocess iis
iquite ibeneficial ibut imay ialso idefeat ithe ipurpose iof ia icriminal itrial iif ithe ireporters
ioverstep ithe iboundary ibetween i'reporting' iand i'judging'. iIt ihas iindeed ibecome ia
idisturbing ifeature ithat ithe iaccused ipersons, iafter itheir iremand iby ithe imagistrate, iare
ibrazenly iparaded ibefore ithe iPress iand iinterviews iare ibeing iallowed. i
Police icustody iis igiven iby ithe icourt ito ithe iinvestigation iauthorities ion ithe ipremise
ithat ithe iaccused iis irequired ifor ithe ipurpose iof iinvestigation. iThis icustody iis inot ito
ibe imisused iby iallowing ithe imedia ito iinterview ithe iaccused ipersons iwhen ithey iare iin
ipolice icustody iunder ithe iorders iof ithe icourt. iThere iis iunnecessary isensationalisation
iin irape icases iwherein ithe imedia itry ito idig iinto ithe ivictim's isexual ihistory.

iThere iare i'rape ishield istatutes' iin ithe iUnited iStates iwhich iprohibit idisclosure iof
iinformation iabout ia ivictim's isexual ihistory iduring itrial. iIn iState iof iMaharashtra iv.
iR.J. iGandhi iAIR i1997 iSC i398, ithe iSupreme iCourt isaid i"A itrial iby ipress, ielectronic
imedia ior ipublic iagitation iis ivery iantithesis iof irule iof ilaw. iIt ican iwell ilead ito
imiscarriage iof ijustice. iA ijudge ihas ito iguard ihimself iagainst isuch ipressure iand ihe iis
ito ibe iguided istrictly iby irule iof ilaw".

Moreover isuch imedia iTrials iunnecessary idraw ithe ijudiciary iinto ithe ipublic isinner,
ioften imaking ia imockery iof ijustice idelivery isystem. iThe ispecial iTADA icourt ijudge iin
iMumbai itrying ithe iBombay iblasts icase iexpressed ihis iunhappiness iat ithe imedia
iinterviewing ithe iaccused, iprosecution iand idefence ilawyers iwithin ithe icourt ipremises. i

Former ichief ijustice iY.K. iSabharwal, ispeaking iin iBangalore iurged. i"Judges inot ito ifeel
ipressured iby ithe i'Disturbing itrend' iof ithe imedia icreating iperceptions iwhile ia icase iwas
ipending ibefore ithe icourt. iThey ishould igo istrictly iby ithe ilaw iand ithe ievidence iwithout
ifear iof ibecoming iunpopular". iHe ialso isaid, i"If ithis icontinues, ithere ican't ibe iany
iconviction iJudges iare iconfused ibecause imedia ihas ialready igiven ia iverdicts".
iPreconceived inotions iabout ithe iaccused idifferent itreatments iare igiven iby ithe imedia,
iand ithat iis ihow isometimes ithe iaccused igains iunwarranted ihatred ior isympathy ifrom
ithe ipublic iin igeneral. iBefore ithe ijudgment iis ipronounced, ibefore iany iverdict iis igiven
iby ithe icourt iaccused ieither ibecomes icriminal ior iinnocent iin ithe ieyes iof ithe ipublic. i

The imost irecent icase iis iUma iKhurana icase iwhere ias iTV ichannel iexpose ion ia iDelhi
ischool iteacher iwho ilured iand icoerced iyoung igirls iinto iprostitution, ihas iturned iout ito
ibe ian ielaborate iand iorchestrated icharade. iThe igirl iwho iplays ithe ivictim iof ithe iso-
called iresident ipimp iwas ineither ia istudent iat ithe ischool inor ia irelevant isex iworker.

Background iof iMedia iTrial i

It iis iessential ito iinitiate ifrom ithe ibackground iintroduction iof imedia itrial, iwhat iis ithe
ibackground iof iit. iHere iis idisclose ithe iinside istory iof imedia itrial iat ievery ilevel iof
ijustice iand isociety. iConstitutionally iFreedom iof imedia iis iindeed ian iintegral ipart iof
ithe ifreedom iof iexpression iand iessential ipre-requisite iof ia idemocratic iset iup. i

The imedia, ithe imighty iFourth iestate iin ia idemocracy, ioperates ithe iother ithree:
ilegislature, iexecutive iand ithe ijudiciary iwithin ithe iframework iof iconstitutional
iprovisions iin ipublic iand inational iinterest. iConstitution imakers ihave iensured ithat ithe
ifreedom iof iexpression ito ibe ienjoyed iby ithe imedia, idoes icome iin iconflict iwith ithe
iindependence iof ijustice idelivery isystem iand imisuse iby imedia iagainst isuch
iindependence iof ijudiciary idoes inot igo iunchecked., iIt iis iexpected iand iobligated ito
iwork iwithin ithe iframework iof ilegal iprinciples iand istatutes iframed iby iway iof
iminimum istandards iof iethics ito ibe iveil iand ifollowed iby imedia iso ithat iby iobserving
ithe isame imedia iin iturn ienjoys ihigher istandards iof iprotection iin ithe imatter iof ifreedom
iof iexpression. i

Without isaying ithis iindependent iand ifair ijudiciary iis ia isine iqua inon. iIt iwill ibe
iappropriate iat ithis istage ito iquote iJustice iFelix iFrankfurter1 ithe imost icelebrated ijurists
iand ijudges ifor iall itime. i“A ifree ipress iis inot ito ibe ipreferred ito ian iindependent
ijudiciary, inor ian iindependent ijudiciary ito ia ifree ipress. iNeither ihas iprimacy iover ithe
iother, iboth iare iindispensable ito ia ifree isociety. iThe ifreedom iof ithe ipress iIn iitself
ipresupposes ian iindependent iJudiciary ithrough iwhich ithat ifreedom imay, iif inecessary,
ibe ivindicated. iAnd ione iof ithe ipotent imeans ifor iassuring ijudges itheir iindependence iis
ia ifree ipress”.

Meaning iof iMedia i& iMedia iTrial:

iHere iis iin ithe icontext iof imedia, imedia imean imedium ibetween itwo imeans, imedium
ibetween itwo iagencies iand isociety. iThe imedium iof icommunication iand iinformation ior
ifact iof isociety ior isocial isegments iby imeans iagencies ithat iagencies imay ibe iin iform
iof ipoint. iElectronic ior iother iin ithe iabove ibackground ihighlighted ithe iact ithat ithe
ibasic irole iof ithe imedia iis ito iinform, ieducate iand iguide ithe isociety. iMedia iis ithe
imost ipotent iorgan iof icommunication iwhich ican ikeep ithe isociety iwell iinformed iabout
iviolations iof ilaw iand icourt iproceedings ion iimportant imatters iin iorder ito iexpose ithe
ibreaches iof ilaw iwhenever iand iwherever ithat ioccurs iand ito iensure ifair iand ijust
itreatment ito iall. iAll iof ius ihave iwitnessed ihow imedia iexposures’ ihave imade ieven ithe

1
iFrankfurter iFelix iwas ia ijurist, iwho iserved ias ian iAssociate iJustice iof ithe iUnited iStates iSupreme
iCourt", iNovember i15, i1882 i– iFebruary i22, i1965.
imighty iand ipowerful ipersonalities istand ibefore ithe ilaw iof ithe iland iand ipublic
iawareness icreated iby ithe imedia ihas iquite ioften iensured ijust iand ifair itreatment ito
iseekers iof ijustice iwho iperhaps icould inot iproperly iventilate itheir igrievances ihad ithere
ibeen ino iappropriate isupport ifrom ithe imedia. iHere imedia iincludes ielectronic imedia
ie.g. inews ichannel, iprint imedia, isocial imedia ilike iFacebook, iwhat's iapp ietc.

An iOverview iof iMedia iTrial iand iJudicial iIndependence i

It iis imentioning ihere ian ioverview iof imedia itrial iand ijudicial iindependence. iIt iis ialso
iillustrate ithe ibetter iand iproper irelationship ibetween ithem iand irole iof imedia iin ifavour
iof ipublic iand ifair itrial. iMedia ias ian iinstitution iof icivil isociety icomplements ithe
ijudiciary ia ivital ipillar iin ia idemocratic iset iup. i‘While ijudiciary iis iaccountable ito ithe
ilaw iof ithe iland iand ito ithe isociety ifor iits ijudgments, ithe imedia iis ialso iaccountable
ito ithe ipublic ifor iwhom iit iacts ias ia iwatchdog.

The imedia, iboth iprint iand ielectronic ihave ia icritical irole ito iplay iin iimproving ipublic
iaccess ito, iand icomprehension iof iour ijustice isystem. iWe imust iaccept iand ireinforce
ithe iimportance iof ithe irole iplayed iby ithe ipress, iboth iprint iand ielectronic ias ithe
iinstitution ithrough iwhich ithe ipublic igather iinformation iabout ithe iworking iof ithe
icourts. iBut iwe imust ialso inot iforget ithat imedia ican ionly ireport ifacts iit icannot iplay
ithe irole iof ithe icourts. iIn ithe iInternational iarena ialso iefforts ihave ibeen imade ito
iexamine iand iformulate iprinciples ifor ibetter irelationship ibetween ithe imedia iand ithe
ijudicial iindependence.

iIn i1994, idetailed iprinciples iwere idrawn iup isince iknown ias i‘Madrid iPrinciples’2 ion
ithe irelationship ibetween ithe iMedia iand iJudicial iIndependence, iat ithe iConference
iorganized iby ithe iInternational iCommission iof iJurists. iThese iare ivital iguiding
iprinciples. iResearcher iconfident ithat imedia’s icommitments ito ipublic iinterest iand
ijudiciary’s icommitment ito iindependent ijudicial isystem iwill iensure ithat ithe itwo ivital
iorgans iwork ihand iin ihand ifor ithe ipromotion iof ipeople’s ipower ithrough irule iof ilaw.
i

2
iThe iMadrid iPrinciples ion ithe iRelationship ibetween ithe iMedia iand iJudicial iIndependence iJournal iof
iAfrican iLaw iVol. i39, iNo. i1 i(1995), ipp. i106-108 iPublished iby: iSchool iof iOriental iand iAfrican iStudies
The ijudiciary ithe ivery iimportant iand ivital ipillar iof idemocracy iand ithe imedia ithe
ifourth iestate icomplement ieach iother ito iestablish ia itransparent iand ivibrant irule iof ilaw
iand ijustice idelivery isystem iin iIndia iand iboth ithe iinstitutions ihave ithe ideep irespect
iand iconcern ifor ieach iother. iThe ipresent istudy ion ivarious iaspects iof imedia,
ifunctioning iin ireporting icourt iproceedings iin ithe icontext iof iadministration iof ijustice
iby iidentifying irelevant iissued iand iconcerns iwill igo ia ilong iway iin ievolving iconsensus
ito iguide iboth ithe imedia iand ilaw icourts iin ifuture iand iwhen ithat ihappens ithis ivery
iimportant istudy iwill iachieve iits igoal.

Origin iof ithe iProblem

iIt iis ivery iimportant ithat ievery istudy irequired ia icognitive imap. iSo ifind iout ithe
ilogical iframework iof ithe istudy. iHere iis iorigin iof ithe iproblems isignificant ithat ipresent
iscenario iof iour ination iand iabroad iis ikeenly idiscussing ion irelations iof imedia iand
ijudicial ito imaintain ilaw iand iorder ifor ihealthy isociety. iIn ithe iabove icontext isome
icrucial ilogics idiscussed ihere. iMedia iplays ian ieducative iand imobilizing irole iin isociety.
iIt iis idifficult ito ienvisage ia idemocratic isociety ibereft iof ia ifree ipress. iIn irecent itimes,
ihowever, imedia ihas icome iunder isharp icriticism ifor iover, istepping ithe iboundaries iof
ia ifair iand ibalanced ireporting. iThis iis iparticularly itrue iof iinvestigating ireporting.
iWhere iin ithe imedia iis ioften ifound iconducting iparallel itrial iand ipronouncing iits iown
iverdict iof iguilt ior iinnocence iof ian iaccused ieven ibefore ihe iis iadjudged iso iby ia icourt
iof ilaw. iAs ia iresult, ithe iaccused iis ioften ideprived iof ihis iright ito ia ifair itrial iwhich,
iin iturn, ileads ito imiscarriage iof ijustice.

In iState iof iMaharashtra iv. iR.J. iGandhi3, ithe iSupreme iCourt isaid i"A itrial iby ipress,
ielectronic imedia ior ipublic iagitation iis ivery iantithesis iof irule iof ilaw. iIt ican iwell ilead
ito imiscarriage iof ijustice. iA ijudge ihas ito iguard ihimself iagainst isuch ipressure iand ihe
iis ito ibe iguided istrictly iby irule iof ilaw". i

The imost irecent icase iis iUma iKhurana iv. iState iof iDelhi4 iwhereas iTV ichannel iexpose
ion ia iDelhi ischool iteacher iwho ilured iand icoerced iyoung igirls iinto iprostitution, ihas

3
iState iof iMaharashtra iv. iR.J. iGandhi iAIR i1997 iSC i398
4
iUma iKhurana iv. iState iof iDelhi ion i14 iDecember, i2007 i: i146 i(2008) iDLT i429
iturned iout ito ibe ian ielaborate iand iorchestrated icharade. iThe igirl iwho iplays ithe ivictim
iof ithe iso-called iresident ipimp iwas ineither ia istudent iat ithe ischool inor ia irelevant isex
iworker. iInstead, ishe iwas ian iaspiring ireporter iwith iher ieye ion ithe ibig ibreak. iIn ithis
icase, ithe isting ihas istruck iitself iin ithe itail. i

In ithe icase iof iSanjay iDutt iv. iState iof iMaharashtra5 i, imedia iis ihandling ithe icase
isympathetically iwhereas iin iJessica iLal ithat iis iState iof iManipur iv. iVikas iYadav6 icase
iManu iSharma ihas ialready ibeen iannounced iguilty iby ithe imedia iand iDelhi iHigh iCourt
ialso ireversing ithe iacquittal iof iManu iSharma iand ipronouncing ihim ia ilife isentence.
iJessica iLal i(5 iJanuary i1965 i– i30 iApril i1999) iwas ia imodel iin iNew iDelhi, iwho iwas
iworking ias ia icelebrity ibarmaid iat ia icrowded isocialite iparty iwhen ishe iwas ishot idead
iat iaround i2 iA.M. ion i30 iApril i1999. i

Dozens iof iwitnesses ipointed ito iSiddharth iVashisht, ialso iknown ias iManu iSharma, ithe
ison iof iVinod iSharma, ia iwealthy iand iinfluential iCongress-nominated iMember iof
iParliament ifrom iHaryana, ias ithe imurderer. iIn ithe iensuing itrial, iManu iSharma iand ia
inumber iof iothers iwere iacquitted ion i21 iFebruary i2006.

International iStatus iof ithe iStudy i: i

In ithe ilight iof iinternational iconcern isome idiscussions ipresented ihere. iThis iis idescribing
isome ilegal istatus iin ivarious icountries ilike iUSA, iAustralia, iand iScotland ietc.

iIn iseveral icountries, iU.K, iAustralia, iNew iZealand ietc, iany ipublication imade iin ithe
iprint ior ielectronic imedia, iafter ia iperson’s iarrest.

Stating ithat ithe iperson iarrested ihas ihad iprevious iconvictions, ior ithat ihe ihas iconfessed
ito ithe icrime iduring iinvestigation ior ithat ihe iis iindeed iguilty iand ithe ipublication iof
ihis iphotograph ietc, iare itreated ias iprejudicial iand ias iviolence iof idue iprocess irequired
ifor ia isuspect iwho ihas ito iface ia icriminal itrial. iIt iis iaccepted ithat isuch ipublications
ican iprejudice ithe iminds iof ithe iJurors ior ieven ithe iJudges i(where iJury iis inot
inecessary).

5
iSanjay iDutt iv. iState iOf iMaharashtra ion i16 iOctober, i1995 i: iSCC i(6) i189, iJT i1995 i(7) i378
6
iState iOf iManipur iv. iVikas iYadav ion i2 iMarch, iAIR i2000
iEven iin iUSA, iit ihas ibeen iso iaccepted. iThe idifference ionly iis ithat iin iUSA, ithe
iprinciple iis iof i‘clear iand ipresent’ idanger iwhile iour iConstitution ipermits i‘reasonable’
irestrictions. iA irestriction ion ithe iright ito idue iprocess iwhich irequires ithat ino isuch
iprejudicial ipublication ican ibe imade, iafter iarrest iof ia iperson, iwhich iwould iinterfere ior
itend ito iinterfere ior iobstruct ior itend ito iobstruct ithe icourse iof ijustice, imust ibe itreated
ias ireasonable, ifor iit iis inot ia ipermanent ior iabsolute irestriction.

New iZealand i

Freedoms iof iexpression iand iliberty ihave ito ibe ibalanced iin isuch ia iway ithat ithere iis
ino iprejudice ito ithe isuspect ior iaccused: i

Irish iLaw iReform iCommission: ion iBalancing ithe iRights: i

In iIreland, ithe iLaw iReforms iCommission7 istated ithat ipress, iradio iand itelevision ihad
ia ipowerful ieffect ion ithe ipeople iand iif iit iis inot isubjected ito ireasonable isafeguards,
ithere icould ibe ipotentially iserious ieffects ifor ithe iproper iadministration iof ijustice iand
imay iresult iin ilong iimprisonment iof iinnocent ipeople. iIn icontrast, ithe ipublic iinterest
iin ithe itree iflow iof iinformation iis iby ino imeans iwholly iinterrupted iby ia icareful
iobservance iof ithe isub ijudice irule, isince, iat iworst, ithe iinhibition iof iunrestricted
icomment iand ipublication iof iallegedly irelevant ifacts iis iof ia itemporary inature ionly. iIt
irejected ithe iargument ithat ithe isub-judice irule ioffends iagainst ithe iguarantee iof ifreedom
iof iexpression i(Art i40.6.1). iJuries icould ibe iaffected iby iprejudicial ipublications
iaffecting ifairness iin iadjudication iand iother ialternatives iwould inot ibe isufficient. i

Thus iall ithese iLaw iReforms iCommissions iin iNSW, iAustralia, iCanada iand iIreland
isupported ithe isub ijudice irule iand iobserved ithat ifor ithat ipurpose ifreedom iof ispeech
icould ibe irestricted. i

It iis ibecause iof isignificance iof ithe ipress ifreedom iand iwith ia iview ito iprevent ithe
iauthorities ifrom itrampling ithe isame; iit ihas ibeen iconstitutionally ior iotherwise
iguaranteed iin imany icountries ias iis ievident ifrom ithe ifollowing: i

Union iof iSoviet iSocialist iRepublic i(Erstwhile)

iThe igreat iSoviet iencyclopedia—Bolshaya iSovietskaya iEntsiklopediya, iMoscow—states

ithat itrue ifreedom iis idependent iboth ion ithe ilegal iguarantees iof ifreedom iof ispeech iand

7
iLaw iReforms iCommissionReport i47, i1994.
iof ifreedom iof ithe ipress ias iwritten iinto ithe iConstitution, ibut iit iis irequired ithat ithe
iState icreate isuitable imaterial iconditions ifor ithe iexercise iof ithose ifreedoms; iaccess ito
ifinancial imeans, iprinting ipresses, inewsprint, ietc. iSince i1936, ithe iConstitution ihas
igranted iall ithese irights iin iArt. i125 iwhich ireads:

“In iconformity iwith ithe iinterests iof ithe iworking ipeople, iand iin iorder ito istrengthen
ithe isocialist isystem, ithe icitizens iof ithe iUSSR iare iguaranteed iby ilaw: i(a) iFreedom
iof ispeech; i(b) iFreedom iof ithe ipress; i(c) iFreedom iof iassembly, iincluding ithe
iholding iof imass imeeting; i(d) iFreedom iof istreet iprocessions iand idemonstrations.

Canada i

Section i2 i(b) iof ithe iCharter ienacted iin iCanada iin i1982 inot ionly iguarantees
iindividual’s iright ito ifreedom iof ithought, ibelief, iopinion iand iexpression ibut ialso
iensures ithe ifreedom iof ithe ipress iand iother imedia iof icommunication.46 iFreedom iof
iopinion iand iexpression iis iuniversal iin iCanada.47 iSection i2 i(b) iof ithe iCharter istates
ithat ieveryone ihas ithe ifundamental ifreedom iof ithought, ibelief, iopinion iand iexpression
iincluding ifreedom iof ithe ipress iand iother imedia iof icommunication.8

United iKingdom

iPress ifreedom iis inot iguaranteed iby ithe iconstitutions—whether iwritten ior iunwritten—
of iall ithe icountries, ieven ithough imuch iemphasis ihas ibeen ilaid ion iit. iSame iis ithe icase
iin iUK. iHowever, ithe ifreedom iof ispeech iand ipress iis ipromoted, iprotected iand
irestricted iby ilaw. iThe iright ito ifreedom iof idiscussion, ilike iall iother iindividual irights,
iis inot ibased ion iany ideclaration iembodied iin ia iconstitutional idocument, ior iin iany
iparticular irule iof istatute ior icommon ilaw, ibut iis ibased ion ithe iordinary irule iof ilaw
ithat ino iman iis ito ibe ipunished iexcept ifor ia idistinct ibreach iof ithe ilaw9.

United iStates iof iAmerica i

8
iCrawford, iop. icit., ip.2.
9
iDurga iDas iBasu, iCommentary ion ithe iConstution iof iIndia, i(Calcut ia, iS.C. iSarkar i&Sons, iPvt. iLtd.,
i1965), ip. i606
The iConstitution iof ithe iUnited iStates iguarantees ithe iright ito ifreedom iof iPress.
iFormulation iof iany ilaw ithat iabridges ithe ifreedom iof ispeech ior ithat iof ipress iis
iprohibited iby ithe iFirst iAmendment i(1791) iof ithe iConstitution. iThis iAmendment irests
ion ithe iassumption ithat ithe iwidest ipossible idissemination iof iinformation ifrom idiverse
iand iantagonistic isources iis iessential ito ithe iwelfare iof ithe ipublic. iAnd ithe iFourteenth
iAmendment, iwhich iprevents ithe iStates ifrom imaking iany ilaws ithat iwill ideprive iany
iperson, iinter ialia, iof iliberty iwithout idue iprocess iof ilaw, imade ithe iFirst iAmendment
ibinding ion ithe iStates.

National iStatus iof ithe iStudy

iIt iis iimportant ithat iwhat ieffect igoing ion ito iinfluence ithe iIndian iConditions. iSo ito
iknow iIndia ilegal iprovisions iand iconstitutional iarrangements ihave idiscussed inational
istatus. iIn ithe inational istatus ihighlighted idifferent ipopular ihearings iand ivarious
iprovisions iregarding imedia itrial. i

Media iplays ia ivital irole iin imoulding ithe iopinion iof ithe isociety iand iit iis icapable iof
ichanging ithe iwhole iviewpoint ithrough iwhich ipeople iperceive ivarious ievents. iHeinous
icrimes imust ibe icondemned iand ithe imedia iwould ibe ijustified iin icalling ifor ithe
iperpetrators ito ibe ipunished iin iaccordance iwith ithe ilaw. iHowever, ithe imedia icannot
iusurp ithe ifunctions iof ithe ijudiciary iand ideviate ifrom iobjective iand iunbiased ireporting.
iWhile ia imedia ishackled iby igovernment iregulations iis iunhealthy ifor idemocracy, ithe
iimplications iof icontinued iunaccountability iare ieven imore idamaging. iSteps ineed ito ibe
itaken iin iorder ito iprevent imedia itrials ifrom ieroding ithe icivil irights iof icitizens,
iwhereby ithe imedia ihave ia iclearer idefinition iof itheir irights iand iduties, iand ithe icourts
iare igiven ithe ipower ito ipunish ithose iwho iflagrantly idisregard ithem.

In iExpress iNewspapers iv. iUnion iof iIndia10, ithe iSupreme iCourt iexhaustively idealt
iwith ifreedom iof ithe ipress ibut istated ithat iit icannot ibe iunbridled. iLike iother ifreedoms,
iit ican ialso isuffer ireasonable irestrictions.

Related iIndian iActs

10
iExpress iNewspapers iv. iUnion iof iIndia i1959 iSCR i12
iThe iIndian iPenal iCode i1860 iThe ipress ifreedom iis irestricted iby ithe iI.P.C. iUnder
iits iprovisions iit iis ian ioffence ito iincite ienmity ibetween idifferent iclasses iof icitizens,
ito ispread iany irumours ior ireports ilikely ito iincite imembers iof ithe iArmed iForces ito
imutiny ior ifailure iof iduty, ito icause ialarm ito iany isection iof ithe ipublic iwhereby ithere
iis ian iinducement ito icommit ian ioffence iagainst ithe iState ior iagainst ipublic ipeace, iand
ito iincite ione iclass ior icommunity iagainst ianother, ito iutter iwords ior ito imake ivisible
irepresentations iwith iintent ito iwound ireligious ifeelings ior ibeliefs iof ianother iperson, ior
iof iany iclass iof icitizens. i

The iPress iand iRegistration iof iBooks iAct i1867 iUnder ithis iAct, ino iprinting ipress,
inewspaper, ibook iand iperiodical iprinted iin iIndia, ican ihave iits iexistence iwithout
iregistration. iHowever, iin ifact, iit iimposes ino irestriction iagainst ipress ifreedom. iIt ionly
icarries ithe iobjective iof isecuring iinformation ion iprinting iestablishments iand itheir
ipublication.

iThe iIndian iTelegraph iAct i1885 iIn ithe iinterest, iof ipublic isafely, ipublic iorder, ithe
isovereignty iand iintegrity iand isecurity iof ithe iState, ithis iAct iempowers ithe igovernment
ito ihive inecessary iinterference iwith ithe ifunctioning iof ithe ipress iand ito iintercept,
idetain ior inot ito itransmit iany imessage. iBut ithe imessage iof ithe ipress, iwhich iis
iintended ito ibe ipublished iby icorrespondents iaccredited ito ithe iCentral iGovernment ior
ia iState iGovernment ican ibe iintercepted ior idetained ionly iduring ipublic iemergency.

The iIndian iPost iOffice iAct i1898 iThis iAct iauthorises ithe iState ito iintercept, idetain,
ior inot ito isend iany iindecent ior iobscene ipublication ior irepresentation. i

Criminal iProcedure iCode i1898 iSections i99 iA i-99 iG iof ithe iCr. iP.C. ido inot iimpose
iany iprior irestraint, ibut iprovide ifor ithe iforfeiture iof iobjectionable idocuments iafter ithey
ihave ibeen iprinted iand ipublished, isubject ito ia iright iof ithe ijudicial ireview iagainst ithe
iorder ibefore ia ispecial iBench iof ithe iHigh iCourt. iUnder iSec. i144 iof ithe iCode iprior
irestraint ican ibe iimposed. iBu iit iis inot idirected ito ithe ipress ias isuch ias iit iis iof ia
igeneral iapplication. iThe iCr.P.C. i1973 iempowers ithe iState ito iforfeit icopies iof ia
ipublication ithat ioffends ithe iprovisions iof ithe iI.P.C. irelating ito ipublic iorder ior isecurity
iof ithe iState. i
The iPolice i(Incitement ito iDisaffection) iAct i1922 iThis iAct iprovides ifor ia ipenalty ifor
ispreading idisaffection iamong ithe ipolice iand ifor irelated ioffences.

The iOfficial iSecrets iAct i1923 iModeled iafter ithe iBritish iOfficial iSecrets iAct i1920,
icertain iprovisions iin ithe iIndian iOfficial iSecrets iAct istood ias imain iobstacles iagainst
ithe ifree iflow iof ilegitimate iinformation ito ithe ipeople iin iIndia. iSec. i5 iof ithe iAct ihas
ia ichilling ieffect ion ithe ifreedom iof ithe ipress ias iit iprohibits ithe icommunications iof:
iany isecret iofficial icode ior ipass iword ior iany isketch, iplan, imodel, iarticle, inote,
idocument ior iinformation iwhich irelates ito ior iis’ iused iin ia iprohibited iplace ior irelates
ito ianything in isuch ia iplace. ior iwhich iis ilikely ito iassist idirectly ior iindirectly ian
ienemy ior iwhich irelates ito ia imatter ithe idisclosure iof iwhich iis ilikely ito iaffect ithe
isovereignty, iand iintegrity iof iIndia, ithe isecurity iof ithe iState ior ifriendly irelations iwith
iforeign iStates ior iwhich ihas ibeen imade ior iobtained iin icontravention iof ithis iAct.

The iCopyright iAct i1957 iIt iprotects ithe ioriginal iworks iof iwriters, iartists, imusicians,
idramatists, ifilm imakers iand iother icreative ipersons ifrom ibeing ipirated. iHowever, iif ithe
iwork iis ireproduced ior iborrowed iby isomeone, iother ithan ithe iauthor, ifor ithe ipurpose
iof iresearch, icriticism, ireview, ireporting icurrent ievents iin ia inewspaper ior imagazine ior
ifor ijudicial iproceedings, iit idoes inot iconstitute ian iinfringement iof iCopyright iAct.

Contempt iof iCourts iAct i1971 iAny iaction itaken ior iany iwriting ipublished iwith ian
iintention ito ibring ia icourt iof ilaw iinto icontempt ior ilower iits iauthority ior ito iobstruct
ior iinterfere iwith idue icourse iof ijustice ior ilawful iprocess iof ithe icourt iamounts
icontempt iof icourt. iFor iexample, ipublication iof iproceedings iof ia icase ibeing iheard iin
icamera, ifalse iand igrossly iinaccurate ireporting iof icourt iproceedings, ipublication ithat
imay itend ito iinterfere iwith iorderly iadministration iof ijustice, ior ipublication ithat
iscandalises ithe icourt, ithe ijudges, icounsels, iparties ior iwitnesses icome iunder ithis
icategory.

Conclusion i

Media iis irecognised ias ithe ifourth ipillar iof iDemocracy iafter iLegislature, iExecutive iand
iJudiciary. iIt iplays ian iimportant irole iin icreating iawareness iamong ipeople iand iis
icapable iof ichanging ithe iviewpoint iof isociety. iTherefore, iin iorder ito iensure
idemocracy, ithere iis ia ineed ifor ifree iand iindependent imedia. i
Part iIII iof ithe iConstitution iof iIndia idoes inot ispecifically italk iabout iFreedom iof iPress.
iBut iin ia inumber iof icases iSupreme iCourt iheld ithat ithe ifreedom iof ispeech iand
iexpression ienshrined iin iArticle i19(1) iof ithe iConstitution iincludes ifreedom iof ithe
ipress. iThe irole iof imedia iis ito ikeep ithe ipublic iinformed. iHowever, ithese idays ithe
irole iof imedia iis ioften icriticised iespecially iin ireporting icriminal imatters. i

The imedia isometimes igo ibeyond iits idomain iand istarts iinterfering iwith ithe ifunctions
iof ithe icourt. iSo ishould ithe imedia istop ireporting icriminal icases ithat idirectly ior
iindirectly iresults iin iinterference iwith ithe ipowers iof icourt? iMedia ihas istarted
ifunctioning ias ia ipublic icourt. iIt inow iconducts ia iparallel itrial iwith ithe icourt. iIt ifails
ito irecognise ithe igap ibetween ian iaccused iwho iis ipresumed iinnocent iuntil iproven
iguilty iand ia iconvict iwhose iguilt iis iproved ibeyond ireasonable idoubt. i

Trial iby iMedia igenerally irefers ito ia ipractice iwhere ithe imedia istarts idoing iits iown
iinvestigation iand iforms ia ipublic iopinion iagainst ithe iaccused ieven ibefore ia itrial
icommences. iIn ithis iway, iit iprejudices ithe itrial ithereby iinfringing ithe iright iof ithe
iaccused ito ia ifair itrial. iThus, ithe iaccused ithat imust ibe iconsidered ias iinnocent iuntil
iproven iguilty iis inow ipresumed ias iguilty ithereby iviolating ihis irights. iIn ithe ifirst
ichapter iintroduction iis ivery iimportant iin ithe isense ias iit igave iintroductory iinformation
iabout ithe iwhole iwork. i

It idescribed iabout ithe ihistorical idevelopment iof imedia iand imedia itrial. iDevelopment
iof imedia inationally iand iinternationally iand iperception iof imedia iwere idescribed iin
ichapter ifirst. iIt ialso iconsidered ithe iobjectives iof ithe istudy, iresearch iquestion iof ithe
istudy, ioverview iof ithe iselect iliterature, imethods iand itechnique iof ithe istudy iand
inational iand iinternational istatus iof ithe istudy iand isignificant iof ithe istudy. i

The iimpact iand igrowth iof ipoint ielectronic imedia ifor iabout ilast itwo idecades,
iparticularly iin ipast iten iyears iin iour icountry ihave ichanged ithe ientire iperception iof
ireporting iand iresponsibilities iassociated iwith iit. iWhile ion ithe ione ihand ithe imedia ihas
iserved ito icreate ia iwell-informed icitizenry, ithere iare iincidents igalore iwhere ithe ipublic
iitself ihas iprotested iagainst ithe iobsessive iintrusion iof ithe imedia iand itrial iby imedia
iparticularly iin imatters iinvolving ithe ipublic ipersonalities iUnfortunately itill itoday
ielectronic imedia iremains ipractically iunregulated iand iPress iCouncil’s irequest ito ibring
imedia ito ibe iregulated iby iit isuitably iamending ithe iAct, ithe iview isince isupported iby
ieminent ipersonal ilike iPresident iof iIndia iand iApex iCourt iof ithe icountry, ihas inot ibeen
iacceded ito iby ithe iGovernment.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A: iBOOKS i

• iBakshi, iP.M. i- iThe iConstitutional iLaw iof iIndia, iUniversal iLaw iPublishing iCo.
iDelhi, i6th iEd. i2005. i

• iJain, iProf. iM.P. i- iIndian iConstitutional iLaw, iWadhwa i& iCompany iNagpur, i5th iEd.
iReprint i2004.

i• iPandey, iDr. iJ.N. i- iConstitutional iLaw iof iIndia, iULP, iDelhi i4th iEd. iVol. i- i2
iReprint i2005.

i• iShukla, iV.N. i- iConstitution iof iIndia, iEBC, iLucknow, iEd. i2001, iReprint iApril i2004
iwith iSupplement

. i• iJournal iof iIndian iLaw iInstitute i- iLaw iand iSociety, i2002-2003

ARTICLES:

i• iKatju, iJustic iM., iRole iof ithe iMedia iin ithe i21st iCentury, i2002 iAIR iJournal. i

• iKejriwal, iArvind, iContent ifor ithe iPen, iTimes iof iIndia, i18 iSep. i2007. i

• iDutt, iBarkha, iCourting iSeclusion, iHindustan iTimes, i22 iSep. i2007. i

• iBansal, iPriya, iJudicial iActivism iof iMedia, iLawyers iUpdate, iVol. iXIII. iPart i1st iJan.
i2007. i

• iSuroor, iHasan, iHow iPrivate igrief iturned iinto iMedia iCircus, iThe iHndu i15 iSept.
i2007.