ABSTRACT
Media Trial or Trial by Media[1] is a phrase used to describe the negative impact of television and newspaper coverage of cases pending before court. Media often create an atmosphere of hysteria in sensational cases, beginning with commencement of investigation and carried on till trial. Often, details leaked by investigating agencies to media tend to affect the outcome of trial. By public hysteria, a fair trial with logical conclusion often invites public wrath if it is adverse to the perceptions created by media and media makers. In a country like India, mob mentality, independent of the media, is rare. It is not that all judges get carried away by outpouring of the media and spokesmen, but it puts them under pressure. Their verdict may, at times, be criticised insensibly if in contrast with observations of the media.
- Introduction
Violation of constitutional and legislative provisions by media are described. In the constitutional provisions the importance and significant arrangements of freedom of speech are given in detail. It is implication of the article in the light of legal significance. Various legal and constitutional bodies used the provisions and media uses that during the trials. It is simply explain the intensive structure of the provisions.
Media Trial or Trial by Media[2] is a phrase used to describe the negative impact of television and newspaper coverage of cases pending before court. Media often create an atmosphere of hysteria in sensational cases, beginning with commencement of investigation and carried on till trial. Often, details leaked by investigating agencies to media tend to affect the outcome of trial. By public hysteria, a fair trial with logical conclusion often invites public wrath if it is adverse to the perceptions created by media and media makers. In a country like India, mob mentality, independent of the media, is rare. It is not that all judges get carried away by outpouring of the media and spokesmen, but it puts them under pressure. Their verdict may, at times, be criticised insensibly if in contrast with observations of the media.
M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal[3]is one among many cases where the apex court came down heavily on media trial. It was held thus “Having gone through the records, we find one disturbing factor which we feel is necessary to comment upon in the interests of justice. The death of Chandhni took place on 28th February, 2002 and the complaint in this regard was registered and the investigation was in progress. The application for grant of anticipatory bail was disposed of by the High Court of Calcutta on 13.2.2004 and special leave petition was pending before this court. Even then, an article has appeared in a magazine called ‘Saga’ titled “Doomed by Dowry” written by one Kakoli Poddar based on her interview with the family of the deceased giving version of the tragedy and extensively quoting the father of the deceased as to his version in the case. The facts narrated therein are all materials that may be used in the forthcoming trial in this case and we have no hesitation that this type of articles appearing in the media would certainly interfere with the administration of justice. We deprecate this practice and caution the publisher, editor and the journalist who was responsible for the said article against indulging in such trial by media when the issue is subjudice. However to prevent any further issue being raised in this regard, we treat the matter as closed, and hope that the other concerned in journalism would take note of this displeasure expressed by us for interfering with the administration of justice.”
The hope expressed by the apex court has not reached the media, especially those in Kerala. Investigative journalism is a very loose phrase, invariably clamoring for protection of right to expression and freedom of press. Very often, the media reports colourful accounts of so called eye witnesses and investigating officers. Its effect on trial is drastic. Quiteoften these accounts go against the prosecution version regarding the incident. If the verdict in unacceptable media and politicians unleash scathing attacks on the judge for deviation from their conclusions earlier accounts of witnesses are projected to justify their pre-trial conclusions Is this not naked intrusion into the administration of justice? Media has to understand that there is a system to deal with investigation and trial of cases. One can understand fair criticism of judgments by media, which is good for the system. But what is ‘really happening is total deviation from that objective.
With ever increasing number of newspapers and visual media houses, competition is inevitable. Many criminal cases being focus of public attention, reliable news thereon will certainly Increase ratings ofT.V. channels and newspapers. But the cause for concern is that this is now at risk to administration of justice. The directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter have not been heeded. The media cannot become apostles of virtues overnight. We need a comprehensive law which regulates mediacoverage at least in criminal cases starting from the stage of investigation and ending before trial. The law should restrain Investigatory agencies from leaking information on mailers pending investigation. Case diary details are inaccessible even to defense lawyers. It should also curb parallel investigation by the media. Interviews of witnesses and publication thereof at any stage of criminal cases should bebanned. Let the media expose inadequacies in investigation or trial, but it cannot work as a parallel agency entitled to grill out a convenient version of truth at the cost of damaging our competent judicial system.
The Law Commission of India, in its 200th report[4] severely criticised the growing trend among Medias to interfere in the process of trial and thereby causing great prejudice to the accused. For the sake of brevity, I only quote a relevant portion:
“If excessive publicity in the media about a suspect or an accused before trial prejudices a fair trial or results in characterizing him as a person who had indeed committed the crime, it amounts to undue interference with the administration of justice, calling for proceedings for contempt of court against the media. Other issues about the privacy rights of individuals or defendants may also arise. Public figures, with slender rights against defamation are more in danger and more vulnerable in the hands of the media.”
In the interest of the system, it is not possible or desirable to invoke contempt jurisdiction in every case of media excess. Whether it is legislation or contempt of court proceedings, there should be a curb on this dangerous trend which is now assuming alarming proportions. It is high time that those interested in free trial stand up and fight this grave injustice.
[1]Law Commission of India, 200th Report, On Trial By Media Free Speech and Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 August 2006
[2]Law Commission of India, 200th Report, On Trial By Media Free Speech and Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 August 2006
[3]M.P.Lohia v. State Of West Bengal & others on 4 February, 2005
[4]Law commission of India 200 th report on trial by media free speech and fair trial under criminal procedure code, 1973 august 2006