Trial by Media
(Research and Study by our Intern)
According to the Oxford Dictionary the word ‘Trial’ means, “A formal examination of evidence by a judge, typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings”.
According to webster - “A formal meeting in a court in which evidence about crimes, disagreements, etc., is presented to a judge and often a jury so that decisions can be made according to the law”.
It can be inferred that terminology of ‘Trial is generally associated with legal implication. And the authority of examining and concluding any dispute is only given to the Judiciary.
So how does the media exercise ‘Trials’?
The Constitution of India has guaranteed her country one of the most important Fundamental Rights, under article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech and expression.
Unlike the American constitution, which expressly mentions the liberty of the press, the media derives its right from article 19(1)(a) - the right to freedom of speech and expression, available to every citizen in India.
“Press has no special rights which are not to be given or which are not to be exercised by the citizen in his individual capacity. The editor of press or the manager is extremely exercising the right of the expression and therefore no special mention is necessary of the freedom of the press” - Dr Ambedkar’s speech in the constituent assembly debates, VII, 980
Media has the same right as that a citizen would have. It is no more and no less than any individual. Freedom of media includes both, the right to speak and the right to be heard.
However, like other freedoms even this freedom is not absolute. It may be restricted by a law on the grounds specified in Article 19(2) of the Constitution namely; a) Security of the state, b) Sovereignty and integrity of India, c) Friendly relations with foreign states, d) Public order, e) Decency or morality, f) Contempt of court, g) Defamation, h) Incitement to an offence.
Actor and former Member of Parliament Divya Spandana[1], who was known as Ramya when working in the film industry, has won a defamation case against Suvarna News 24X7, a Kannada news channel, and Asianet News Network Pvt. Ltd., its holding firm. The court awarded damages of ₹50 lakh apart from an injunction against telecasting any such programme on air.
It is clearly established that, media fundamentally has freedom to express, just like any other citizen of India. But Media has to exercise this freedom with due diligence, as its coverage of the audience is huge. In a run to supersede other news channels, there are instances of the media acting impulsively, leading to a ‘Fake News’. This may result in unexpected outcomes.
In April, for instance, Republic TV, falsely accused a Muslim group Tablighi Jamaat[2] for violating lockdown orders, and called on India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi to "lock up their leadership". In the early days of the pandemic, the group's gathering in Delhi was linked to at least a 1,000 covid cases across the country. The event's organisers insisted the congregation had been held before the government imposed a lockdown, a claim which has now been upheld by many courts in India.
But misleading broadcasts by news channels triggered Islamophobic reactions on social media.
Media plays a key role in directing, shaping and changing the opinions of society. It is also socially responsible as its news may lead to Democratic Uprising. In cases where Courts have released the accused on illogical and unethical grounds, With the help of its audience support, it can empower a victim to seek justice from the Court.
In Jessica Lal Murder case in April 1999[3], on refusal to serve drink, though the murder were witnessed by many, In trial court, had acquitted Manu Sharma, as witness turned hostile and the weapon used for murder was missing. There were mass protests and the public was hysterical over acquittal news reports such as ‘NO ONE KILLED JESSICA’. DUe to constant media coverage, after 7.5 years, he was sentenced to life imprisonment in Dec 2006.
Similarly in Bijal Joshi rape case, 2005[4], The Gujarat High Court on upheld convicted five people accused of gang-raping Bijal Joshi in Ahmedabad eight years ago, bringing a sense of relief to a country, witnessing widespread anger and protests over the brutal gang-rape of 23-year-old medical student in Delhi.
It is always possible that media publication may influence the judges subconsciously. Live coverage of occurrences, interview of victim/related persons, expert opinion etc., all these psychologically create a point of view in the minds of viewers. Judges too are human beings and belong to society, and at times even he may get influenced.
The Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra V. Rajendra Jawan Mal Gandhi,
1997(8) SCC 386.[5]
Ruled that “a trial by press, electronic media or by way of public agitation is the very anti-thesis of rule of law and can lead to substantial miscarriage of justice. In the present circumstance a judge is duty-bound to protect himself against the pressure exerted by media publication”.
Anukul Chandra Pradhan V. Union of India, 1996 (6) SCC 345.
In context of administration of criminal law - “No location should arise for Impression that the publicity attached to these matter (the Hawala transaction) has entered to dilute the emphasis on the essentials of fair trial and the basic principle of jurisprudence including the presumption of innocence of the accused unless found guilty of the end of the trial”.
There have been many cases where the Accused person is tried by media before actual commencement of trial by the court of law. media had taken cases into its own hands and declared an accused guilty even before the court has given its decision.
By conducting frivolous debates, expert’s interviews, instant updation of news, Media effectively conduct ‘TRIALS’ both in civil and criminal matters. Even a minor violation of law and order is noticed by every vigilant media. The manner of reporting news and views and have the potential to form public opinion. Public opinion is demanded through voting. By this the channel also know the TRPs of a news channel. And to increase the sponsored funds at times news are made sensational.
The right to a fair trial is an absolute right provided to any individual as per Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court said in Saiball V/s B.K.sen, AIR 1961 SC 633[6] -
”It would be mischievous for a newspaper to conduct an independent investigation of a crime for which a man has been arrested and to systematically publish the result of the investigation. This is because, trial by newspaper, when a trial by one of the regular tribunal is going on, must be prevented. The basis for this view is that such an action on the part of the newspaper tends to interfere with the Court of Justice."
In the Aarushi Talwar murder case of 2008[7], the media had declared who was guilty even before the trial began. At First, media suspected and accused Hemraj Banjade, the missing servant employed by her family. Salacious allegations were made against Aarushi and the suspects. When police discovered his partially decomposed body on the terrace the sensation shifted to her parents.
Shushant Singh & Many Others Cases.
On 14 June 2020, the Indian actor Sushant Singh Rajput was found dead. Police initimated it to be a suicide. Many News channels, especially backed by political parties having powers to influence central machinery, created a huge uproar of the sorrowful death of the actor. The underlying intention was to usurp the seat of the opposite political party’s at the State level, for the upcoming elections. Media conducted various rounds of debates tryings to fineline the suicide into murder. It caused a lot of furore among the general public.
Kangana Ranaut, an Indian actress and filmmaker, openly blamed Nepotism as cause of suicide of Rajput. It gradually shifted it focus in exposing an ambiguous murder mystery. This lead to the filing of various petitions in the Supreme Court seeking a CBI probe into the late actor’s mysterious death.
Shushant’s case lead to series of other cases exposing high profile illegalities in Bollywood. When Rajput's girlfriend, Rhea Chakraborty, was arrested for allegedly buying drugs for him. It was found that many actors were involved in consuming and supplying marijuana and cocaine drug used in high-profile Bollywood parties.
The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) questioned many famous bollywood actors i.e Deepika Padukone, Sara Ali Khan and Shraddha Kapoor in this regard. This shook the entire FIlm Industry in India. Many rulers of Bollywood attempted to protect their fictitious image from two words ‘Nepotism’ and ‘Drug Abuse’’ Even Samajwadi Party MP and former actress Jaya Bachchan, spoke about an alleged "conspiracy to defame the film industry”. Heavy rounds of interviews and Debates were being conducted by many Media Channels, with Republic TV in forefront. Arnab Goswami was constantly airing flivilious debates alleging involvement of chief minister Uddhav Thackeray of Maharashtra in Sushant’s death. This agitated the State Governmentmachinery and it sought vindictive practices to shut up all those who were constantly accusing them in above controversies and were in its anti support. They also involved other govt. machineries such as BMC to demolishing female Actor Kangana Ranaut’s office, alleging “illegal alterations”.
Konan Police to repon a 2 year dated back closed case in which Arnab Goswami - managing director and editor-in-chief of Republic Media Network, was accused in abetment of suicide. Finally Arnab Goswami was arrested by the Raigad police in a two-year-old abetment to suicide case of a 53-year old Interior Designer Anvay Naik and his mother.
While the case was already closed 2 years ago it was reopened at the behest of Maharashtra State Govt. Though the police had concluded that Mrs Kumud (Anvay’s mother) was strangled by her own son Anvay, who had then later killed himself and a closure report was also filed. The case was reopened without following proper procedures.
He was sent to 14 days judicial custody and his bail application was rejected by Bombay High Court. Finally the Supreme Court granted him bail and questioned the investigation of the case.
Finally, after all these trials of cases that followed subsequently from Sushant Singh’s Death’s Investigation, on 3 October, Dr. Sudhir Gupta of AIIMS, leader of the CBI-designated forensic medical team, said, "Sushant death is a case of suicide. Murder completely ruled out”
Though the media may occasionally abuse their freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of India, The society has gained more from a free press. It has time and again exposed the lies and exposed politicians. Media is effectively serving as ‘Fourth Pillar of Democracy’ by highlighting high profile criminal cases, and punishing the offenders, acquitted by Judiciary, thereby serving Justice.
[1]https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/ramya-wins-defamation-case-against-media-house/article27073216.ece [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54930379?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Binforadio%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D#:~:text=In%20the%20early%20days%20of,by%20many%20courts%20in%20India. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jessica_Lal [4] https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bijal-joshi-gang-rape-case-relief-for-family-as-high-court-upholds-conviction-of-accused-509013 [5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1454600/ [6] https://www.casemine.com/search/in/saibal%2Bkumar%2Bgupta [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Noida_double_murder_case