Authored By: Arya Nargundi
Shankarrao Chavan Law College Pune
Introduction:
There is vast change in the relationship between the media trails and criminal justice due to the introduction and innovation of mass media. It has raised many serious issues for the advocates and scholars. The main role of the media is to provide reliable information to the citizens leading to transparency. But in today’s era, Trial Media has become a threat as it shapes citizens perception before it reaches the court. This hampers the right of an accused to get an unbiased judgement. It creates a conflict between freedom of speech( article 19)[1] and right to a fair trial ( Article 21). The Article holds that even if Media is important for making the public aware about the ongoing situations, too much interference of media in criminal matters affects the person’s right to a fair trial under Article 21[2]. Therefore it is very necessary to create a balance between both to ensure transparency and proper legal rights to both the parties while maintaining the decorum.
Keywords: Trial by Media, Freedom of speech, Media Ethics, Article 19, Article 21, Fair Trial.
Legal Framework:
The conflict between two constitutional and legal frameworks i.e Right to a fair trial and Freedom of the press is created due to trial by media. It is understood that the media has a responsibility to keep the public informed but they must ensure that they do not create any interference with the fair conduct of Judicial Proceedings.
Freedom of Speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)
The Indian Constitution of India has granted the right to freedom of speech and expression through section 19(1)(a). This grants freedom to the press for reporting news, criticising authorities or individuals and giving public information regarding the issues.
The role of the media in criminal matters is to promote transparency and ensure accountability by making the public aware about the ongoing matter. However they must ensure this does not interfere with the court trial.
Hence the media has the complete right to conduct reports on the ongoing cases however it cannot declare an accused person guilty before he is proved to be guilty in the court.
Right to Fair Trial under Article 21
The Indian Constitution of India has granted the right to life which gives a person right to a fair and impartial trial. A fair trial means the judicial decision that is based only on evidence that is presented before the court and till the accused is proven to be guilty, he is assumed to be innocent. Media reporting has an ability to form public opinion , can influence witnesses and investigations which can hamper the fair process of conducting a trial.
Press Council Act, 1978
Press Council Act, 1978[3] makes sure that the media follows ethics while reporting and avoids creating sensation and should understand that its role is advisory .
Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995[4] The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 regulates broadcasting of content that is defamatory or misleading or will prejudice judicial proceedings on television.
Contempt of Court Act, 1971[5]
The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 protects the administration of justice by treating publications that interfere with pending judicial proceedings or prejudice a fair trial as criminal contempt.
Why do Constitutional Rights need to be balanced?
To ensure a fair trial under Article 21.
To ensure security to freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a).
To keep judges, witnesses and investigations away from influences.
To ensure privacy and reputation of the accused.
To Protect the Presumption of innocence.
To create balance between freedom and justice administration.
Case Law Analysis:
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124[6]
This case recognises the importance of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
The Supreme Court of India considered freedom of press as an important element of democracy hence cannot be restricted. However it can be restricted if the situation matches with the grounds specified in Article 19(2)[7].
The Supreme Court of India held that freedom given to the press must be exercised with almost responsibility and must not be misused. It must be exercised within the limits prescribed.
R.K.Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106[8]
The Supreme Court of India held that the media should not influence the outcome of a pending case. The case is based on a sting operation that happened during the BMW hit and run case trial .
The Court stated that there must be ethical journalism and media organisations should refrain from conducting sensational reporting as it may obstruct the administration of justice.
Manu Sharma v. State of Delhi, (2010) 6 SCC 1[9]
The Supreme Court of India held that fairness of criminal proceedings can be influenced by excessive publicity of media.
The media should focus on providing information to citizens to ensure transparency. It should not create any claims against a person who is not declared guilty yet.
The judgement stressed that every accused person is considered to be innocent till he is declared guilty by the court of law.
It highlights the importance of creating balance between freedom of Media and right to a fair trial to the accused.
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603[10]
The court held that media reports can affect the outcomes of ongoing cases hence the court has a right to issue a postponement order if media is found to be influencing a trial .
These orders are not permanent in nature and are to be used in rare cases as they are used to protect the fairness of trial and to give accused the right to fair trial and not to restrict the press freedom.
This created a balance between the right to a fair trial and freedom of the press and ensured that media coverage does not affect the judicial process .
Nupur Talwar v. CBI, (2012) : Many television channels and newspapers created public opinion that the accused was guilty before any decision regarding his guilt was passed .This was done through publishing unverified theories and reports. The Supreme Court of India highlighted the negative impact of excessive media coverage.
Critical Evaluation:
Negative effects of Trial Media:
Reduce trust in Judicial System: If the public finds that judicial decisions are influenced by media coverage it can hamper their trust on judicial systems. For smooth functioning of the judiciary maintaining trust among the public is necessary.
Misunderstanding is created: Media sensation can create a false image of an accused in the minds of the public. This creates rumours about the accused which can damage the accused’s reputation.
Witnesses can be influenced: Media reports can significantly influence the opinion of witnesses which can make them change their statement leading to a different outcome of the case.
Unnecessary Sensationalism: Media organisations tend to create fake and dramatic headlines as well as stories to gain more views for earning profits. This misleads the public and witnesses and harms the career, reputation and personal life of the accused.
Affects the working of investigators: Due to constant media attention and sensation, the investigators are forced to work fast in pressure which can affect the quality of investigation done. Also to complete investigation on time, they may overlook some details
Forms public opinion : The public gets to know about the happenings in the country through media coverage. Media coverage can influence the public regarding the innocence or guilt of the accused.
Positive Role of Media
The media, being the fourth pillar of democracy, plays an important role in creating awareness among the citizens of the country. It creates transparency by exposing corruption, educating the people about legal issues, and making the government and public authorities accountable. If the meda reports with unbiasedness, responsibility and awareness it can support the justice system in creating awareness among citizens.
Challenges :
Even after the existence of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Press Council Act, 1978, and guidelines for ethical journalism some challenges still exist
The Press Council of India cannot take strict actions or impose penalties as it has only advisory powers.
Media organisations often tend to ignore ethical guidelines for getting more views to earn profit.
The Trial by media is not governed separately by any law.
Digital media being the fastest mode of communication is difficult to regulate in terms of rumours and spreading of false information.
Media Trials often shape public perceptions of individuals before the completion of legal procedure.
Suggestions:
Media ethics should be strengthened and responsible journalism must be encouraged.
Must take strict action for reporting prejudicially in pending cases.
Must provide journalists special training on legal reporting.
Increase public awareness about the presumption of innocence and the importance of a fair trial.
Improve regulation of digital and social media platforms.
Critical Analysis
Freedom of press is essential for democracy but it should not interfere with an individual’s right to a fair trial. The judiciary tried to maintain a balance between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21. However digital media created new challenges for this decision. The court should ensure justice is based on evidence and not on the media’s opinion. To ensure this a strong legal framework, ethical journalism and proper enforcement of ethical standards is required.
Comparative Perspective
United Kingdom: There are strict laws in the United Kingdom to prevent interference of media in the pending court cases. The media are prohibited from publishing reports that can influence an ongoing trial. The law prohibits newspapers and broadcasters from presenting information that could influence judges, juries, or witnesses before the final judgment. [11]
United States: The first amendment to its constitution protects freedom of the press. Various safeguards like change of trial venue, careful selection of judges, postponing proceedings are taken to make a trial fair
Comparison with India: Indian laws lack legislation that particularly deals with trial by media. Courts of India look for provisions in Constitution, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and judicial precedents to conduct fair trial and protect the rights of accused. Even after recognizing the harmful effects of excessive sensation, enforcement is difficult socially in the digital media age.
The comparative studies make it clear that a balance between freedom of the press and right to a fair trial is required in every democracy. The United Kingdom has a strict legal restriction and the United States has procedural safeguards for it whereas India follows a balanced constitutional approach through judicial intervention. Legal Framework of India can be improved through ensuring ethical journalism, improving media regulation and adopting clear guidelines for reporting pending criminal cases.
Conclusion:
Trial Media is considered to be a major challenge to India’s criminal justice system. Excessive or sensational reporting by the media can affect the right to a fair trial even though it plays an important role in ensuring transparency and creating awareness among the public.
References (Bibliography)
Statutes
Constitution of India.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Press Council Act, 1978.
Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
Information Technology Act, 2000.
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Cases
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106.
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1.
Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2012) 10 SCC 603.
Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012).
Books
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis, 9th ed., 2023).
V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India (Eastern Book Company, Latest ed.).
Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis, Latest ed.).
Reports and Guidelines
Press Council of India, Norms of Journalistic Conduct.
Law Commission of India, 200th Report on Trial by Media: Free Speech versus Fair Trial under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) (2006).
[1]INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(a).
[2]INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[3]Press Council Act, No. 37 of 1978 (India).
[4]Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, No. 7 of 1995 (India).
[5]Contempt of Courts Act, No. 70 of 1971, § 2(c) (India).
[6]Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 (India).
[7]CINDIA CONST. art. 19(2).
[8]R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 S.C.C. 106 (India).
[9]Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[10]Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India, (2012) 10 S.C.C. 603 (India).
[11] Contempt of Court Act 1981 (UK).
