INTRODUCTION
The press, or media, is regarded as the fourth pillar of democratic nations. We are very well aware that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government are distinct and independent of one another. Regarded as the fourth pillar, the press or media may be compared to the other three organs, each of which is distinct and independent of the others. The media serves as a platform that facilitates the exchange of ideas and communication across cultures. These concepts serve as the foundation for discussion and involvement in society.
The Indian Constitution grants the three branches of government—the legislative, executive, and judicial branches—their respective rights and jurisdictions. In a similar vein, the Indian constitution gives the press and media its legitimacy. Part III of our Constitution includes a detailed enumeration of essential rights, ranging from Article 12 to 35. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, among other liberties specified in the article. The Constitution does not contain any explicit reference of press freedom; instead, it is a subset of speech and expression rights. Since no freedom can ever be unlimited, certain limitations are provided under Article 19(2).
A new discussion on the topic of an accused person’s media trial has begun because of the media’s painful scrutiny of chief accused Indrani Mukherjea’s personal life in the Sheena Bohra murder case.[1] The media has put every facet of her personal life and character that is not legally related to the murder inquiry under intense public examination. The scrutiny of the accused has once again placed the ethics of media in a contentious position. Every institution is vulnerable to misuse, and unchecked liberty has the potential to turn into a license for chaos and anarchy. We are standing on this barrier right now. Sensationalized journalism is being used by television networks to boost their Television Rating Point (TRP) ratings and gain an advantage over rivals.
The foundation of our nation’s criminal law and criminal jurisprudence is the idea that an accused person must always be presumed innocent until and unless their guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, after all legal safeguards have been observed. In addition, the accused is shielded from self-incrimination, which gives them the right to silence.[2] There have been several examples in the news recently of the media holding an accused person’s trial and rendering a decision before the court does. Several well-known criminal cases, including the rape of Bijal Joshi, the murder of Nitish Katara, the Priyadarshini Mattoo case,[3] and the Jessica Lal case,[4] might not have resulted in any justice if not for media intervention. However, the media faced criticism for its coverage of Aarushi Talwar’s[5] murder when it reported—ahead of the court—that her father, Dr. Rajesh Talwar, and maybe her mother, Nupur Talwar, were implicated in her death. The CBI subsequently clarified that Rajesh was not the murderer.
A common term for this phenomenon is “media trial.” Trial by Media refers to how media coverage, like that seen in newspapers and on television, can damage a person’s image by fostering a generalized belief of guilt that persists even after a legal case is resolved. There is a contentious dispute between those who want an almost unrestricted free press and others who think that a person’s right to privacy and a fair trial should come first. When prominent figures and celebrities are involved, the issue becomes more apparent. Reporting by the media in these situations has the power to influence public opinion. Media trials are a practice that has increased in frequency over time. Something that was once used to inform the general public of the facts about cases has evolved into a practice that poses a serious risk to the administration of justice. Furthermore, it emphasizes how important “responsible journalism” is in the society.
[1] Writ Petition No. 4400 of 2017
[2] Report on Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and the Right to remain Silent, available at:
www.lawcommissionofIndia.nic.in
[3] S.K. Singh v. State through CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 87 OF 2007, SC
[4] State vs Siddarth Vashisth & Manu Sharma, 2001 IIIAD Delhi 829
[5] 2013 (82) ACC 303