AW48

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MEDIA TRIAL AND ITS EFFECTS ON

INDIAN JUDICIARY
 INTRODUCTION

Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and
expression, the media is granted freedom of the press to continue reporting news and
publishing articles based on witness and other party interviews regarding cases that are
subjudice and pending in court. However, by using this freedom, the media may prejudge
cases and interfere with the administration of justice, potentially leading to a miscarriage of
justice. The media's role in high-profile cases, which involves conducting investigations and
regularly reporting news, can generate a great deal of publicity, lead to prejudice or bias
views, and have a significant impact on the administration of justice. In certain cases, judges
are required to render verdicts based solely on the facts and evidence presented in court,
which may require them to find in favour of the accused even though they are innocent. This
essay focuses on how the media's coverage of the trial impacts the accused person's right to a
fair trial and highlights the tension that exists between press freedom, judicial independence,
and fair trials. The foundation of Indian criminal law is the idea that a person has a right to a
fair trial and is presumed innocent unless and until they are proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Due to exclusive coverage, the media covers and publishes witness
interviews, victim relatives' comments, legal fraternity members' opinions, and other events
that could taint the trial process, especially in the eyes of the judges. Since the media quickly
reaches out to the general public, this actually has an impact on how the public perceives
itself. Over the past ten years, there has been a noticeable increase in the media's impact on
the legal system and the process of accessing justice in numerous cases including corruption,
rape, murder, sexual harassment, and terrorist operations, among other issues.

The most important factor assisting the media in carrying out its duties is freedom of speech
and expression. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of
speech and expression, although this right is not unrestricted and is subject to certain legal
limitations. Even with legitimate limitations on the right to free speech and expression, it is
evident how the media misuses this right to interfere with the administration of justice in the
name of its own trial, a practice that is illegal under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.
Press freedom is crucial in democracies because the public has a right to information and
knowledge. Because it could result in a media trial, the media must exercise extreme caution
while reporting on news and cases that are still active in court. The investigative function of
the press has proven beneficial in rectifying instances of government malfeasance by
revealing criminal activities and illicit activities and distributing pertinent public information.
However, the phrase "public interest" lacks a clear meaning. The media's ever-expanding
influence has made the media trial a serious issue. The rapid advancement of technology
guarantees the speedy flow of information. A formal judicial review of the evidence and the
adjudication of a legal claim are the definitions of a "trial."

MEDIA REPORTING OF CRIME AND FAIR TRIAL

The media trial begins well in advance of the courtroom trial itself. The media undertakes
parallel hearings in cases like arrests, bail, confessional statements, and interrogation matters
in an effort to stir up controversy or sway the course of justice. It places responsibility on a
trial court, which is required by the constitution to reduce the impact of negative publicity.
Since the courts and media carry out public duties, they ought to be allowed to maintain their
independence and freedom of action without fear of interference. The Supreme Court has
chastised the media for publishing an article that touched on the details of a pending case,
despite the Court of Law having granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a dowry death case
before the Kolkata Court. The story was based on an interview with the deceased's relatives.
Recently, the media has taken the lead in bringing justice to some of the most well-known
cases that were pending for a very long time before this Hon'ble Court. In cases like the well-
known "Jessicalal Case, Nirbhaya Case, Priyadarshini Mattoo Case, Sanjeev Nanda Case,
Arushi Talwar Case, Sheena Bora Murder case," justice was finally served. The media's
recent intervention has been praised for its ongoing pursuit of the truth, which was crucial in
bringing about justice in the notorious Jessicalal Case and Nirbhaya Case. Justice in the
Jessica Lal murder case was delayed since all of the witnesses became hostile and Manu
Sharma, the accused, was found not guilty. Tehalka and the media, through the Justice for
Jessica campaign, were instrumental in bringing about the desired outcome. The prosecution
in the Mattoo case was guided by the Justice for Jessica campaign. The accused was charged
with the rape and murder of Priyadarshini Mattoo, a law student. Thanks to the media's
participation, the case's investigation was expedited, and the accused was found guilty. In the
Sanjeev Nanda Case, Nanda, a businessman's son, is accused of killing over six persons in a
hit-and-run incident while operating a drunken BMW.
After media intervention, the case was under review. The state prosecutor was complicit and
assisted in obtaining the truth, while Nanda's attorney bribed the witness in a sting operation
that was broadcast on the NDTV television channel. Regarding Arushi Talwar, the media
sparked a frenzy. In well-publicized instances, the media frequently shapes public opinion
widely, even when it violates the accused's fundamental human rights. Since every part of
Sheena Bora's life was scrutinised by the public, even those that had no bearing on the case or
the public at large, the Sheena Bora Murder case has given rise to contentious reportage
surrounding the accused's trial proceedings.

CONTEMPT OF COURT AND TRIAL BY MEDIA

Under the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act. There are criminal and civil headings for contempt.
Laws against contempt are well-established, all-encompassing laws that are put in place to
preserve the honour of the legal system and safeguard the administration of justice. The
Indian Constitution's Articles 129 and 215 give the Supreme Court and High Courts,
respectively, the authority to penalise someone for contempt of court. The Indian Constitution
restricts the right to free speech and expression in cases when it would constitute contempt of
court. It is not permissible for someone to use their freedom of speech and expression to
damage the public's perception of the court. A restriction on contempt of court is imposed
under Article 19(2). Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution recognises the law of contempt
as an exception to the freedom of speech and expression granted by Article 19(1)(a). One
cannot conflate or equate the freedom of expression with the authority to make careless
accusations. The fundamental goals of contempt laws are to safeguard trial fairness, the lack
of bias, and the right to a defence. The purpose of the court's contempt penalty powers is to
support the court in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring the proper administration of
justice.
 CONCLUSION

In every democracy, the freedom to free speech and expression is fundamental. The media
has the same rights as everyone else, and they generally use those rights for the sake of
society. Although sensationalising news is not a new phenomena, it is concerning when
media outlets act like courts and police by conducting investigations, gathering evidence, and
rendering decisions. When a crime is committed, it is believed to have an impact on society;
as a result, the state responds right away to the complaint and handles the case.
The accused, who should be presumed innocent, is presumed guilty under the auspices of a
"Media Trial," in which the media itself conducts a separate investigation and shapes public
opinion against the accused even before the court takes cognizance of the case. In this way, it
prejudices the judges and the public. Even though the 17th Law Commission of India
identified this issue in its 200th report, no significant action has been made to address it other
than recommending that the subjaundice period be treated beginning from the time of arrest
rather than a charge sheet being filed. The action is insufficient to handle the administration
of justice in the context of the media trial.
There may be many problems with the system, and the media should help address them.
However, instead of doing so, they began investigating and determining the guilt of the
individuals, which could confuse the public and increase the possibility of manipulation and
the accusation of innocent people. The case presents a few significant legal questions. The
right of the accused to a fair trial comes first, and the victim's rights are a further aspect of the
issue. The media has been responsible for monitoring the operations of all government
agencies, but it has also succeeded in becoming a vital source of public opinion and voice.
The media has now overstepped its bounds due to a variety of reasons, including media trials
during the investigative stage, contempt of court, careless reporting, exaggerated coverage of
the subjaundice issues, and ongoing pressure to maintain market competitiveness.