I.

INTRODUCTION

In a democratic nation as ours, media plays an eminent role in creating, molding and
reflecting opinion of public at large. Over the years, media has become very powerful and it
was rightly stated by the British Politician, Edmund Burke that the media has now acquired
the status of fourth estate of democracy; the other three estates being Judiciary, Executive
and Legislature. Media has the capability to build as well as malign the image of a person
and therefore it is of utmost importance that media should function without any bias and
prejudice. Due to freedom of press guaranteed under Article 19 of the constitution of India,
media intervention in an under trial case has become a very common phenomenon in India.
The practice is commonly known as “Trial by media”.

Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe
the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a
widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law. 1 The
news channel and newspapers in certain cases start acting as parallel court and they give
judgments based on their presumptions, however, they always overlook the golden principles
of ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ and ‘guilt beyond reasonable doubt’. In the
case of Noor Aga Khan v. State of Punjab 2 it was held by the apex court that, though not
explicitly mentioned in the constitution, presumption of innocence is nevertheless a potent
background to the conception of justice, in preserving confidence in enduring integrity and
security of a legal system. In the lure of gaining higher TRPs, the recent trend of media trial
not only interferes with the judicial proceedings, it influences and molds the minds of general
public in believing the guilt of the accused even before the court has given its verdict. Parties
to litigation have a the constitutional right under Article 21 to have a free trial in court of law
by an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm.3

The recent unfortunate demise of Indian actor, Sushant Singh Rajput has again led to the
functioning of “parallel courts” i.e. media trials in India and thereby again kicking in the
debate of Media Trial. Time and again, media houses have interfered with the independent
and impartial functioning of the judiciary by interfering in a sub-judice matter. The accused,
1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_media
2
Noor Aga Khan v. State of Punjab
3
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and ors v. State of Gujarat and ors, (2006) 3 SCC 374
 who is also a famous celebrity in India, has become a prey of these media houses in their
attempt of providing ‘justice’ by the means of media trials. One practicing, criminal-defense
lawyer describes acting for a high-profile defendant as akin to entering a “looking-glass
world” in which witnesses routinely sell their stories to the press; “every scrap of evidence,
inadmissible or not,” is leaked, stolen, or otherwise ferreted out and repeatedly published or
broadcasted.4

4
Hal Haddon, Representing a Celebrity Criminal Defendant, 33 LITIG. 19, 19 (2007).