Abstract
In an age where the information travels faster than justice, the courtroom is no longer confined to its four walls. Media Platforms which is celebrated as vigilant guardians of democracy, are increasingly shaping narratives that blur the line between reporting and adjudication. The growing phenomenon of “Trial by Media” raises a fundamental question whether justice can remain impartial if public opinion gets manipulated. The tension between freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial remains at the heart of this debate. While a free press is indispensable to democratic accountability, its unchecked exercise often transforms into a parallel system of judgment that thrives on speculation and sensationalism rather than evidence and due process. In such an environment, the presumption of innocence becomes a mere legal formality, overshadowed by media-driven perceptions of guilt or innocence. Recent high-profile cases demonstrate how relentless coverage, unverified claims and dramatized reporting can irreversibly damage reputations, influence investigative processes and exert pressure on judicial institutions. At the same time, the absence of robust regulatory frameworks, particularly in respect of electronic and digital media intensify the risks of abuse. This discourse navigates the difficult coexistence of two essential democratic values: the right of the public to be informed and the right of an individual to be judged fairly. It interrogates whether the media’s expanding influence strengthens democracy or quietly erodes it foundational principles. By situating the issue within constitutional, legal and ethical lens, it invites a deeper reflection on the urgent need to maintain the balance before the justices are irreversibly impacted.
Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION
“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it.”
J.S. Mill.
It is a well-established fact that the freedom of speech and expression is most sacrosanct right for the citizens of the India as different from the United States and United Kingdom where it is available to the non-citizens as well. The latter two countries seem to be more concerned about this right. Internationally, first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, art.19[1] of UDHR, art.10 (1) and (2)[2] of ECHR, and many other countries of the world also recognize the right to free expression. In the United Kingdom also, after the adoption of ECHR in domestic law through the Human Rights Act, 1998, everyone has been given the right to freedom of expression irrespective of the citizenship. In India, art.19 (1) (a) says “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.”[3]Although the freedom of the press is not explicitly mentioned here but is implicit under the same as was emphasized by justice patanjali shastri in Romesh Thappar case. Moreover, it has also been said “Freedom of speech is an individual right from which stems freedom of press. Press comes in between the ruler and the ruled or the government and the governed. It is a vehicle through which free speech finds expression, if not entertainment.”[4]According to Hohfield, liberty has a correlative no-right i.e. in one’s liberty, the other has no right to interfere. But no right can be absolute in nature thereby justifying the restrictions imposed by the Constitution under art.19 (2). The freedom of the press has two aspects, the right to publish any news items and the right to circulate it among the people.[5]The media is considered fourth pillar in our democratic system where the task of the media is to promote transparency, ensure accountability and keep the public informed. Yet, this freedom has its limits especially when it clashes with the right to a fair trial, which is a core principle of criminal law. “Trial by media” describes a scenario where, in the process of reporting or seeking sensationalism, media platforms shape public perception and potentially interfere with judicial proceedings by forming opinions about the accused before a court has rendered its judgment.
First of all, it is necessary to understand the meaning of media. The term media encompasses a broader concept than press and refers to all means of mass communication that disseminate information to the public. Legal scholars typically define media as including traditional broadcast platforms (like television or radio), print publications (for example magazines, newspapers and books), digital platforms (news websites or social media networks), and streaming services any technological means through which information is communicated to the public at large. On the other hand, the press generally refers to the printing materials because of its historical significance like the Hindu, the Indian Express e.t.c. After having a light upon the regulatory part, it can be seen that the Press Council of India especially regulates the printed matters. But on the other hand, especially the electronic media, there seems lack of governance. In this case, the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority set up by the News Broadcasters and Digital Association has been entrusted with the task of adjudicating the complaints about broadcasts. But here, it is important to know that NBDA previously known as NBA is a private organization comprising different news broadcasters and has been designed to deal with the ethical, legal and other issues affecting news channels.
In today’s media-driven world, sensationalism often overshadows ethics. Media houses prioritize TRPs over responsible reporting, frequently violating the privacy of victims and accused during ongoing cases. In sensitive matters like rape or murder, media trials based on unverified facts are common. The Khurshid Anwar case,[6] where he was branded a rapist without due process, tragically led to his suicide—raising serious concerns about unchecked media conduct. Moreover, in Aarushi talwar case[7] also, media has extensively covered the issue. In this reference, there are mainly two aspects “in public interest” and “in the interest of the public” and the media only considers the latter for its own interest which means only that information are shown which seems interesting for the public.[8]In this case also, the media has declared Aarushi’s father and some other suspects guilty without any official information while investigation was in going on. Because of the extensive media coverage, the pressure reached to such a level that the CBI had to approach the SC to seek an order restraining the media from giving any sensational report on the case. As the verdict came in 2017, Rajesh Talwar who was declared guilty by the media and later considered such by the public also, was acquitted. The question was still about the lost reputation of him. Besides the above, there are plethora of examples like Sushant Singh Rajput case,[9] or Tarun Tejpal case[10] e.t.c. where the severe consequences of unbiased reporting of the media can be witnessed. In this regard, the court said “both the institutions (judiciary and media) are responsible for ensuring that material is only obtained and shared with the public after it has undergone thorough investigation, evaluation and examination.”[11]
The issue becomes particularly contentious when the presumption of innocence a cornerstone of criminal law is undermined by media narratives. As stated in Anukul Chandra case,[12] the Supreme Court emphasized “presumption of innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the process of media trial. “This principle also finds its place in article 21 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty including the right to a fair trial.In India also, on 13 sep, 2013, the Supreme Court of India ordered the ministry of home affairs to make SoP within the period of three months for the information given by the police to the media regarding ongoing investigations while hearing a public interest litigations.[13]It also said “it should be ensured that the disclosure does not result in media trial so as to allow pre-determination of the guilt of the accused.” Highlighting the importance of the freedom of speech and expression, the court went on to say that not only the media have a right to disseminate but the consumers of news also have the right to receive fair and unbiased information. On the other hand, the accused also deserves fair or unbiased investigation by the police and biased reporting of the media has a potential to undermine the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence i.e. “presumption of Innocence.”
[1] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
[2] The European Convention on Human Rights, 1950.
[3] The Constitution of India, 1950 art.19 (1) (a).
[4] Prof. S. Sivakumar, Press Law and Journalists: Watchdog to Guidedog, 17 Universal Law publishing, lexis Nexis, Gurgaon 1st edn., 2015.
[5]Sakal Papers pvt. Ltd v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 305.
[6]available at<https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/ngo-boss-khurshid-anwar-suicide-rape-chargeby-23-year-old-221246-2013-12-18> (last visited on 21st April, 2025).
[7]Dr.Mrs.NupurTalwar v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2017, available at<https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16210461/> (last visited on 21st Apr. 2025).
[8] Ashmita Kaur, “Analyzing the effect of media trials on the psyche of the masses” 6 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 2 (2019).
[9]Sonam Saigal, “Sushant Case: Media Trial Impacts Investigation” 2021, available at <https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/sushant-case-media-trial-can-affect-probe-says-, hc/article33600567.ece> (last visited on 21st Apr, 2025).
[10]Tarun Jit Tejpal v. The State of GoaAIR ONLINE 2019 SC 926.
[11] Mother Diary Foods & Processing Ltd v. Zee Telefilms Ltd. AIR 2005 Del 195.
[12]Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India1997 Supp. (1) S.CR. 641.
[13]Public Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1166.