Justice or Judgment? Impact of Media Trials on the Criminal  Justice System

ABSTRACT

The media, often seen as the “fourth column of democracy”, plays an important role in shaping  public opinion and ensuring transparency in governance. However, in recent years, the  phenomenon of “testing by test” has emerged as a controversial issue in India’s legal and  democratic structure. Testing by media refers to conditions where broader press and television  coverage affects the result of judicial proceedings, effectively changing the appropriate process  with public opinion. With the rise of sensational and “breaking news” culture, many high profile criminal cases have been subjected to intensive media investigation, which often make  a parallel court of public perception.

This article examines the constitutional conflict between Article 19 (1) (A), which guarantees  the freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21, which protects the rights and personal  freedom of life and personal freedom, including a fair test. It analyses judicial response to  media tests, the impact of such reporting on criminal justice system and comparative  approaches from courts such as UK and America. Ultimately, it argues for a balanced approach  that respects the freedom of the media by protecting the integrity of judicial proceedings,  strengthens regulation, promotes media morality and resolves reforms to protect the rule of  law.

INTRODUCTION

The media holds an important place in modern democracy, often described as a “fourth column”  with legislature, executive and judiciary. Its primary task is to inform citizens, ensure  transparency and make institutions accountable. In India, with its vast population and vibrant  democracy, the press and electronic media have emerged as a powerful platform that shapes  and affects governance. Especially in cases of criminal justice, the media has played a dual role  – sometimes to highlight injustice and gather public opinion, while in other times reduce the  very principles of fairness and fairness.

In the last two decades, the increasing trend of sensationalism in Indian journalism has been  observed. The race for ratings has transformed reporting into a spectacle of “breaking news”,  where the objective often transforms accurate reporting into a dramatic story. Within this  environment, the occurrence of “testing by media” has emerged. This refers to conditions where  excessive coverage of an accused or the case creates a perception of crime or innocence before  saving the judgment of the judiciary. Jessica Lal murder, Arushi Talwar Case, and Sushant  Singh Rajput’s investigation understands the trend, where intensive media coverage not only  affected public sentiment, but also put great pressure on the discovery agencies and the  judiciary.

The central issue raised by the media is a conflict between two constitutional guarantee. On the  one hand, Article 19 (1) (A) protects the freedom of speech and expression, ensuring that the  press can report independently and act as a guard in the society. On the other hand, Article 21  guarantees the right to life and personal freedom, including the right to a fair testing – the cornerstone of criminal justice. This balance is interrupted when the media tarnishes reputation  without judicial proceedings or a proper process of reporting prejudices.

Therefore, the debate on media tests is not about restricting the freedom of the press, rather  it is about ensuring that such freedom does not come at the cost of justice. This article  examines constitutional structures, judicial pronunciation and comparative approaches,  proposing reforms to harmonize free expression with fair testing rights in India.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK  

The Indian Constitution provides a strong foundation for both freedom of the press and the  right to fair testing. However, stress often arises when these two rights intend in terms of media  tests. To understand this struggle, it is necessary to investigate the relevant constitutional  provisions, statutory structures and legal principles.

Freedom of press under Article 19(1)(A)

Although the Constitution of India clearly does not clearly mention “freedom of press”, the  Supreme Court has consistently admitted that it lies in the guarantee of speech and freedom of  expression under Article 19(1)(A).¹ Press acts as a guards of democracy, ensures accountability  of public institutions and gives voice to citizens. However, this freedom is not absolute. Under  Article19(2), proper restrictions can be imposed in the interests of the instigation of  sovereignty, India’s integrity, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation,  or crime.

When media tests interfere with pending judicial proceedings, they can cross the “contempt of  court”, allowing legal restrictions to justify. This challenge is to balance the public’s rights with  the right to tested the accused.

Right to fair testing under Article 21

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal freedom, which has been explained in detail  by the judiciary to include the right of fair testing.² Fair trial is the cornerstone of criminal  jurisprudence, which lies in the principles of natural justice and is estimated to be innocence  until he is guilty. The Supreme Court has often reiterated that justice should be done not only,  but also it should be.

When media coverage portrays an accused as a guilty before being convicted, it violates the  principle, causing a bias between the public, witnesses and sometimes judicial authorities.  Thus, the amount may be the amount for violations of testing Article 21 by media. 3. In  contempt of court act, 1971

The contempt of the Court Act, 1971 provides another legal protection against prejudicial  reporting. Contempt Citizens (disobedience of court orders) or may be criminal (tasks that scam  the court, prejudice judicial proceedings, or interrupted justice administration). ³If it goes to  intervene with the fairness of a test, the excessive or sensational reporting of sub -judges can  constitute criminal contempt.

At the same time, the judiciary has clarified that fair reporting in public interest is not contempt.  Therefore, the Act serves as both a shield for judicial freedom and a check against careless  journalism.

Provision under CRPC and Evidence Act

The Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) and the Indian Evidence Act also show the principle of  fair testing:

• CRPC, 1973: Ensure fair investigation, framing of allegations, examination of witnesses and safety measures for the accused. Any predominant media coverage can derail this process by affecting witnesses or pressurizing investigators. ⁴
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Emphasizes that only legally acceptable evidence should be considered in tests. Media reports, confessions aired on television, or public statements are not qualified as acceptable evidence, yet they often create strong public perceptions that can  indirectly affect the case. ⁴

 Here the analysis-constitutional and statutory structure in India recognizes  both the freedom of the press and the right of a fair testing in the form of fundamental pillars  of democracy. However, unrestricted media reporting on ongoing cases reduces this balance,  threatening the rights of the accused under Article 21. While the existing mechanisms such as  Article 19(2) restrictions, contempt proceedings, and procedural security measures and  evidence acts exist under CRPC, their enforcement in behavior is inconsistent.

Thus, the challenge before the Indian judiciary and the legislature is to develop a clear, balanced  structure that respects the freedom of the media without compromising the sanctity of judicial  proceedings.

JUDICIAL APPROACH TO MEDIA TESTS

The judiciary in India has often been called to investigate the impact of media tests on the  justice administration. The courts have recognized the important role played by the Press in  highlighting injustice and keeping the public informed, but they have also warned against  careless reporting that reduces the right to test. Over the years, many historical cases have  shaped a judicial approach to balance the freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (A) and  have the right to a fair test under Article 21.

R.K. Anand vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) ⁵

The case arose from a television sting operation conducted during the BMW Hit-Run trial. The  media highlighted the immoral collusion between a defense lawyer and the prosecution  witness. While the sting was important in bringing the misconduct to light, the court  emphasized that the case should not intervene in the ongoing judicial proceedings by the media.  This accepted the positive role of investigative journalism, but warned that the media should  act responsibly and do not cross a pending case in prejudice.

Key takeaway: The judiciary allows an inquiry into the media, but draws a line where it hinders  justice or scams the court.

Maharashtra State vs Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997) ⁶

In this case, the Supreme Court clearly stated that “a test by the press, electronic media, or  public movement is very opposed to the rule of law.” It was observed that public opinion of  media campaigns could never replace judicial assessment based on evidence. The court insisted  that an accused has constitutional rights to be tried by the courts of law, not by newspapers or  television studios.

Key takeaway: Media should not make a parallel judicial platform; Justice can only be given  in courts.

Sahara India Real Estate Corp V. SEBI (2012)⁷

The case is dealt with whether courts may issue adjourned orders to temporarily restrict media  reporting of sub -judge’s cases. The Supreme Court upheld the power of the courts to do so in  extraordinary cases to protect the fairness of a test. This ruled that such orders are constitutional  and fall under appropriate sanctions under Article 19 (2), which ensures balance between free  speech and fair test rights.

Key Takeaway: The courts can regulate the time of media reporting to protect judicial integrity  without permanent gagging to the press.

Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) – Jessica Lal Case ⁸

The Jessica Lal murder case was one of the most sensational tests in India, in which intensive  media coverage was a leader for widespread public resentment against the accused. While the  Supreme Court eventually convicted Manu Sharma on the basis of evidence, it strongly  criticized the manner in which the media conducted a parallel test. The court reiterated that the  media should not pronounce the verdict, as doing so may prejudice the process of justice.

Key Takeaway: Media activism can highlight injustice, but should not reduce the fixed process  or do justice.

Judicial analysis and trends from these cases:

1. Recognition of the role of media: The courts appreciate the media’s contribution to corruption, misconduct and exposure to human rights violations. Without investigative reporting, many issues will remain hidden.
2. Caution Against Prejudice: The judiciary warns that sensational reporting, speculative commentary, and the portrayal of accused persons as guilty before conviction undermine the presumption of innocence.
3. Balance mechanism: Judicial equipment such as contempt proceedings, adjournment orders, and strict adherence to evidence law are used to attack a balance. However, the courts are reluctant to impose permanent restrictions, given the democratic significance of the free press.
4. Judicial Development: Over time, the courts have gone only by cautioning the media (Rajendra Gandhi) carefully, which actively manufactures safety measures (support vs. SEBI). This reflects a mature judicial approach that wants balance rather than conflict between press  freedom and judicial freedom.

In conclusion the Indian judiciary has adopted a measured approach: Accepting the sentinel  role of the media, ensuring that justice promotion is not compromised. The constant judicial  attitude is that while media freedom is sacred in democracy, it should work within the limits of  fairness, accuracy and responsibility. Eventually, courts remain the only valid platform to  determine crime or innocence, and media should respect this constitutional limit.

IMPACT OF MEDIA TRIALS ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The influence of media on criminal justice in India has been deep and multidimensional. While  media tests can sometimes promote accountability and highlight systemic flaws, they often risk  reducing judicial processes and fundamental rights. Thus the impact of media tests can be  evaluated through both their positive contribution and negative results

Positive role of media tests:

1. Brings Hidden Issues to Light

One of the most important contributions to media tests is his ability to highlight injustice that  otherwise no one can pay attention. For example, in the Nirbhaya gang rape case⁹(2012),  comprehensive media coverage collected public outrage, resulting in rapidly tracked  investigation, early testing, and significant legal reforms including amendment in the Criminal  Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. Thus the media acted as a catalyst for justice by raising voices.

2. Public pressure on institutions

Media coverage creates accountability for investigative agencies, prosecution and even  judiciary. In many cases, media attention has been ensured that the tests were not delayed or  neglected. For example, the Jessica Lal murder case achieved renewal pace after intensive  media investigation into initial testing and contributed to the final punishment.⁸

3. Legal and social reforms

By highlighting systemic failures, media tests have often affected laws and policy changes.  Custodial torture, gender-based violence and high-profile cases of corruption have debated in  Parliament and led progressive amendments.

Negative Role of Media Trials:

1. Prejudice of accused

The most frightening defect is that the foundation stone of the criminal law is a violation of the  innocence. Sensational reporting is often accused by the court before the projects are accused as guilty. This not only causes irreplacement to the reputation, but also violates Article 21 rights  for dignity and fair testing. ¹⁰

Example: During the Aarushi Talwar Double Murder Case (2008), speculative reporting and  sensational narratives depicted the conflicting versions of the crime, in which the accused and  even the victim’s family was subjected to the killing of the character.

2. Investigation intervention

Comprehensive media coverage often disrupts the investigation process. Witnesses may be  influenced by major media fiction, investigators may feel pressure to work in a hurry, and the  fairness of the process may be compromised. In some cases, confidential details of the  investigation leak to the media, which threatens the collection of acceptable evidence. ¹¹

3. Parallel public court

Media trials create a “court of public opinion”, where crime or innocence is debated by anchor,  panelist and social media users instead of being decided in a court. It reduces the independence  of the judiciary and eradicates public belief in the rule of law.

Examples: Sushant Singh Rajput death case (2020) became a media spectacle, where the  principle of conspiracy, leaked chat, and unaware allegations followed the real inquiry. Public  opinion, 24/7 news debate, polarized society created heavy pressure on fuel and law  enforcement agencies.

4. Psychological and social influence

Families of accused, victims and even witnesses face social instability and mental trauma due  to tireless media investigation. In some cases, the media reported boundaries on the invasion  of secrecy, not only legal but also the moral standards of journalism.

Overall impact on criminal justice:

The dual impact of media tests reflects the contradiction of his role in democracy. On the one  hand, they strengthen the accountability by highlighting institutional failures and insisting on  reforms. On the other hand, they create serious threats to fairness, fairness and dignity in  criminal justice.

The courts have repeatedly emphasized that while media can expose matters and inform the  public, it should not be overcome in giving decisions. However, the competitive nature of  modern journalism often leads to sensational and speculative reporting. This weakens the  credibility of both media and justice systems, causing a crisis of trust between citizens.

In conclusion the media trial acts as a two -edged sword within the criminal justice system. His  power to gather reforms cannot be ignored, but uncontrolled sensationalism erases the  foundation of justice. The challenge lies in promoting responsible journalism which works in  public interest without compromising the appropriate process. To achieve this, regulatory  mechanisms, judicial security measures and media morality should be strengthened, ensuring  that justice is served not only in the courts of law but also in the court of public perception.

CONCLUSION

Media trial phenomenon presents an intensive challenge to the Indian criminal justice system.  On the one hand, the media acts as an important sentinel, highlights corruption, highlights  systemic failures, and gather public opinion to demand accountability. On the other hand,  excessive or sensational reporting can violate the right to a fair test, distort public perception,  and create a parallel court of public decisions. This stress highlights the central conflict between  Article 19(1)(A), which guarantees speech and freedom of expression, and Article 21, which  ensures the right to life and the right to personal freedom, including the fixed process.

Judicial pronunciation in cases like R.K. Anand vs. Registrar, Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, and  Jessica Lal case demonstrated that the courts recognize the media’s indispensable role, they  also take precautions against prejudice reporting compromising justice.

The way media is in harmony with freedom of media with judicial integrity. Strong regulatory  structures, self-regulations through press councils, prudent use or adjournment instructions of  court orders, and public legal literacy can collectively ensure that media testing serves public  interest without reducing justice.

In short, media should act as a patron of democracy, not as a parallel court. In order to maintain  public belief in the justice system, it is necessary to protect both independent expression and  the right to fair testing. Achieving this balance is not only a legal imperative, but also a  democratic requirement, ensuring that justice is given within the courts, while public discourses  remain informed, moral and responsible.

REFERANCE(S):

1. INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(a); see also Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578.
2. INDIA CONST. art. 21; see Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248. 3. Contempt of Courts Act, No. 70 of 1971, § 2(c) (India).
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, INDIA CODE (1974); Indian Evidence Act, No. 1 of 1872, INDIA CODE (1872).
4. R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 S.C.C. 106.
5. State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 S.C.C. 386. 7. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI, (2012) 10 S.C.C. 603.
6. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 S.C.C. 1.
7. Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 S.C.C. 1.
8. Rajesh Talwar v. C.B.I., Crim. Appeal No. 68 of 2013 (All. H.C.).
9. Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar, 2020 SCC Online SC 654.
10. Law Comm’n of India, 200th Report, “Trial by Media” (2006).
11. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8th ed. 2018).
12. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4th ed. 1996).