TOPIC- CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MEDIA TRIAL

UNIQUE CODE - AW_34

 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MEDIA TRIAL

INTRODUCTION
The Indian criminal justice system works on the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
This means that an accused is innocent until he/she is convicted after going through a fair and
full-fledged trial. This is applicable even if the whole world has seen him/her committing the
crime. We have seen the illustration of this notion in the gruesome Mumbai attack1 & Delhi
Gangrape2 wherein almost every citizen wants the culprits to be killed, on spot. However, the
Courts take the charge to give them a fair trial in accordance with the due process of law &
provide them full opportunity to defend themselves.

In spite of this beautiful concept, it is an utter dismay that sometimes people are unable to get
a just & impartial hearing. This is because, a section of society, which is regarded as the
fourth pillar of democracy, has already declared those suspects to be the condemner. This
conviction is done in the absence of any proper evidence or witness and, at last, those
delinquents are sentenced to be hanged till death. In legal parlance, this latter type of
proceeding is known as a “Media Trial.”

MEANING OF MEDIA TRAIL

The term “media trial” or “trial by media” has been defined in neither any legislation nor any
legal dictionary. Thus, many legal scholars have time and again tried to add their views to
provide a concrete definition of the same. In this process, Ray Surette, an American
Professor, came out to be most successful. He has explained this subject matter as “… certain
regional or national news ‘events’ in which the criminal justice system is co-opted by the
media as a source of high drama and entertainment.” 3 Additionally, the Hon’ble Apex Court,
in the landmark verdict of “R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court”4 has also provided
an elaborative definition of this terminology in the words that “The expression ‘trial by
media’ is defined to mean: 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…” Hence, we can say that “media trail” is a parallel trial by media in which the person is
announced to be guilty even when the matter is sub judice before the court of law.

1
Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1.
2
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1.
3
R. Surette, ‘Media Trials’ (1989) 17 J. of Cr. Just. 293.
4
(2009) 8 SCC 106.
Although this model finds its genesis in the Virginia Rappe rape and murder5 case, it has
shown its teeth in India through the infamous case of “K.M Nanavati v. State of
Maharashtra.”6 It is ironic that in both cases, the judges in the media gave exactly opposite
judgments that were given by the courts after conducting the proper proceedings.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON MEDIA TRIAL

The Courts in our country have always batted for freedom of media and thus they have
declared it to be a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 7 However,
they have added a rider that just like other rights enumerated in Article 19, this right is also
subjected to reasonable restrictions.8 This is owing to the reason that if media is allowed to go
unbridled, it may create chaos and turmoil as it has a very large public reach.9

The R.K. Anand (supra) was the first case in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
meticulously discussed the determinants of media trials in the Indian legal system. It
observed that the media trial cannot be permitted to run in parallel with the court trial and it
has no legal standing in our system.

Apart from this, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the famous PIL titled “Nilesh
Navalakha v. Union of India,”10 for the very first time, gave a comprehensive guideline on
the ideal conduct of media during the reporting of a sub-judice matter. Prior to this, the
Courts were of the firm belief that the feathers of media should not be trimmed unless there
are grave consequences in not doing the same. Sometimes, they only issue gag orders where
there is a prima facie violation of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner. This approach was
followed with a view that dissemination of news is in the larger interest of society.11

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

On a critical note, “media trail” could be contemplated to be a necessary evil for maintaining
the sanctity of law in this country. We have seen some illustrative examples like

5
Michael Schulman. ‘Fatty Arbuckle and the Birth of the Celebrity Scandal’ (The New Yorker, 4 October 2022)
<https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/11/fatty-arbuckle-and-the-birth-of-the-celebrity-scandal>
accessed 29 February 2024.
6
AIR 1962 SC 605.
7
Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578.
8
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264.
9
Re.: Harijai Singh, (1996) 6 SCC 466.
10
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56.
11
M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal and Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 686.
Priyadarshini Mattoo,12 Jessica Lal,13 Nirbhaya,14 & Sheena Bora15 wherein the victims got
justice after prompt intervention by the media. If the media were not involved in this, they
could have been one in millions who are waiting for their turn of justice in the ever-lagging
courts of this nation. Similarly, the voice of media in Mathura,16 Vishaka,17 and Nirbhaya,18
have created such an uproar that the State got bound to amend the criminal laws and
strengthen them for the protection of women’s rights in India.

On the other hand, this same media built so much pandemonium in Jasleen Kaur,19 Sushant
Singh Rajput,20 Aryan Khan21, and many other cases. It was of such a level that it became
impossible for the common citizen to know the truth. They defamed the suspects in such a
manner that the latter’s whole personal as well as professional life got ruined in a matter of
days. However, in almost all the cases, the actual investigation led to the conclusion that the
accused had committed no wrong. But still, this media, instead of apologizing, was
shamelessly lamenting that the investigation agencies and courts are not appreciating their so-
called evidence. They forget that verdicts of kangaroo courts have no validity in the eyes of
the law.

There is an old proverb that “your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's
nose begins…”22 In the context of this paper, it could be said that the “right to freedom of the
press” should never be exercised in such a manner that it transgresses upon other rights such
as privacy,23 dignity,24 reputation,25 fair investigation & trial,26 etc. of the citizens. Media

12
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State, (2010) 9 SCC 747.
13
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1.
14
Supra Note 2.
15
Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695.
16
Tukaram & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143.
17
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.
18
Supra Note 2.
19
The Logical Indian, ‘After 4 Years of Public Shaming & Struggle, Saravjeet Singh Finally Proven Not Guilty
On Jasleen Kaur Case’, (The Logical Indian 25 October 2019) <https://thelogicalindian.com/news/saravjeet-
singh-jasleen-kaur/> accessed 01 March 2024.
20
Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56.
21
Kamaljit Kaur Sandhu and Vidya, ‘Aryan Khan clean chit: NCB probe flags key info that showed SRK's son
not involved in drugs case’ (India Today, 27 May 2022) <https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ncb-probe-
arbaaz-merchantt-statement-aryan-khan-mumbai-cruise-drug-bust-case-1955143-2022-05-27> accessed 29
February 2024.
22
‘Quotable Quote’ (Goodreads) <https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7234705-your-right-to-swing-your-arms-
ends-just-where-the> accessed 01 March 2024.
23
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 641.
24
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
25
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 13 SCC 356.
26
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441.
should always act in such a manner that its right does not come in the way of the proper
exercise of other rights vested in the people of this country.

CONCLUSION

Media trail is like a double-edged sword. If acted appropriately, it can construct a narrative
that even the most powerful, by using all his/her money and power could not get free from
the chains of law. But at the same time, such a sword has the ability to destroy our lives too.
There is a plethora of examples where because of the media’s words, people believe that the
accused has committed the crime; but after the trial/appeal, the Court respectfully acquits
them after noting that the guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 27 Thus, it is
pertinent that freedom must be preserved with caution so that it does not act as an unruly
horse that destroys the basic tenets of justice in a zeal to provide justice to the victim.

27
Dr. (Smt.) Nupur Talwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine All 2222; Surendra Koli v. State,
2023 SCC OnLine All 2038.