Introduction

“Fair is Foul and Foul is fair – by Macbeth”

Journalism today can be compared to a fun house of mirrors at a carnival, it is deceptive. The
media plays a vital role all around the world, it carriers a huge responsibility of spreading
awareness amongst the masses. The media has been given immense power under Article
19(1)(a) of the constitution, several world leaders including Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru have
propagated for the freedom of the press as they believed that media is the cornerstone for
democracy. The importance of Article 19(1)(a) was given emphasis by Justice Bhagwati in
the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India “Democracy is based essentially on free
debate and open discussion, for that is the only corrective of government action in a
democratic set up. If democracy means government of the people by the people, it is obvious
that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic process and in order to
enable him to intelligently exercise his rights of making a choice, free & general discussion
of public matters is absolutely essential.”

The term Media Trial defines the widespread influence of newspaper and television creates
on the masses on the reputation of the accused by forming a perception of guilt or innocence
before or after the judgment of the court. It is crucial for us to note that media trials have
taken the role of the court, as well has severely challenged
the authority of the courts. The
media today has transformed into a ‘Janta ki Adalat’ that
is public court, wherein the media
pierces through the judiciary and works on the few facts it
has and represents a biased
opinion before the pronouncement in the people’s court.
Furthermore, it creates a restraint on
the courts to set the case aside in a similar manner as per
the opinion of the masses failing
which gives rise to an uproar in the public and leads to disturbance of public peace.

The media plays a vital role as it is responsible for bringing about awareness to the people,

for keeping democracy alive, for keeping the government on its toes and was considered to be
a watchdog and made the organs of the government accountable to people, due to which
media is considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy. However, the harsh reality of
today is that, the media houses are in the pockets of businessmen or political parties that
control the information, the concept of unbiased reporting has been exchanged for higher ad
revenues, which can only be availed if the channel has a high TRP (Television Rating
Point), due to lack of relevant provisions available to control the media, there is zero control
on what the media spreads. The media has become a superpower, which is blindly followed;
they interfere to an extent wherein the judicial process has been hampered numerous times.
Due to which the rise of media trials has emerged.
 ❖ Determinative Constituents
The Introduction of social media has increased the influence of media trials whereby true or
misleading information spreads virally on sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube etc.
The relentless contribution of sensationalized media trials is the Constant 24/7 news cycle,
which is fed by Digital Media. Misinformation, misrepresentation, and sensationalism can
result in tainting public image and influencing juror bias.

❖ Constrict Plan Of Action:

This is where it becomes relevant to delve into the mitigating arenas wherever possible since
Conflict is inevitable but Combat is more often than treated as optional. With respect to
addressing the present issue at hand, the following measures can be taken account of-

➢ Media Reporting Guidelines:

Creating clear and comprehensive criteria for media reporting on judicial
matters might assist in avoiding sensationalism and bias. These rules may
include reporting principles such as accuracy, fairness, and impartiality
thereby discouraging the release of biased information that may sway public
opinion.
➢ Gag Orders:
Courts can issue gag or restraining orders to prevent the media from disclosing
specific details or comments about a case. These orders are frequently invoked
to preserve the accused's rights and ensure a fair trial as also striking a proper
balance with the First Amendment rights to Free Expression.
➢ Juror Sequestering:
Separating jurors from media exposure during a trial might prevent outside
influence on their perceptions. This approach serves to ensure that jurors base
their decisions only on the factual matrix provided in the court, rather than on
external information or biases.

❖ Media reporting of crime and fair trial

Trial by media starts much before the actual trial in
the Court. In matters such as Arrest, Bail,
Confessional Statements, Interrogation matters the
media conducts the parallel proceedings for
increasing the movement or manipulating the justice.
Its puts burden on a trial Court which has a
constitutional duty to minimize the effects of
prejudicial publicity. Media and judiciary discharges
public duties and should continue to enjoy
independence and freedom of action without threats
of intrusion.

The Court of Law while granting anticipatory bail to an accused in dowry death
before the Kolkata Court, the Supreme Court has criticized the media who has
published an article touching the facts of pending case; the article was based on the
interview of the family of the deceased. While investigating it was found that the facts
 narrated by the media were on sides which might have been used in trial prejudicing
the fair trial procedure.

Media played a leading role in recent times and the efforts of media to discover truth
has played an essential role in delivering justice in some of the very famous cases
which were pending for so long before This Hon’ble Court and justice was awaited in
famous “Jessicalal Case, Nirbhaya Case, Priyadarshini Mattoo Case, Sanjeev
Nanda Case, Arushi Talwar Case, Sheena Bora Murder case”.

❖ The repercussions of trial by the media

➢ The trial by media will have effect on
judiciary if the publications of news reports by
media are inaccurate which can prejudice the mind
of judges and that may lead to miscarriage of
justice, interfere with administration of justice and
affect the independence of judiciary. The
repercussions of media trial can be seen in some of
the landmark cases which had both positive and
negative impact on Judiciary.

➢ In R.K Anand v Delhi High Court the important questions relating to trial by
media were examined by the Supreme Court. The case arose out of a sting
operation carried out by a private television channel NDTC to expose the
unholy nexus between the prosecution, its witness and defense in the favor
BMW hit and run case which has resulted in death of six persons by speeding

➢ BMW car which was driven by the scion of an influential and wealthy family.
At the pendency of the trial even after eight years of the incident, NDTC
telecasted a sting operation to expose the manner in which a senior advocate
appearing for the accused was negotiating with the help of special public
prosecutor to sell out in favor of defense, the Delhi High Court which then
initiated the Suo-moto contempt proceedings and held the special public
prosecutor and the defense counsel guilty of contempt of court and they were
debarred from appearing in Delhi High Court and its subordinate Courts for
four months. Then the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, which
contended that NDTV was guilty of trial by media and it could have telecasted
the sting only after obtaining the permission of the High Court. The Supreme
Court of India rejected the contention holding that such a course would not be
an exercise in journalism but in that case the media would be acting as some
sort of special vigilance agency for the Court. The Court dismissed the appeal
of R.K Anand and issued him a notice for the enhancement of punishment.

❖ Media and contempt of court

As the press generally involves in reporting, writing, criticizing, analyzing the activity
of every system including the judiciary, it is necessary to deal with the contempt
regarding the press publications. The freedom of the journalist is an ordinary party of
the freedom of the subject and to whatever lengths the subject in general may go, so
 also may the journalist, but apart from the statute law, his privilege is not other and no
higher. The responsibilities which attach to his power in dissemination of the printed
matter make him more careful But the range of his assertions, his criticism or his
comments, is as wide as, and no wider than that of any other subject. No privilege
attaches to his position.
Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and
High Courts respectively to punish a person for Contempt of the Supreme Court and
High Courts as a case may be.

➢ Judicial interpretation
▪ Recently Sarvjeet Singh, who had been falsely accused by one
Jasleen Kaur for harassing her where she posted a picture of him on
Facebook which went viral, led to the arrest of Sarvjeet Singh. After
the inquiry it came to light that Sarvjeet Singh was innocent but due to
the media coverage and hype created by the media, the media labelled
him as a harasser and Sarvjeet Singh faced public humiliation and was
sacked from his job. This incident clearly shows how the media can
ruin the life of an innocent through its coverage without verifying with
the true events.

▪ C.K.Daphtary Vs. P.Gupta AIR 1971- Imputing dishonesty to a

judge by stating that he controlled the hearing and manipulating in
getting erroneous Judgement from another judge of the same Bench:

▪ B.K.Lala v R.C.Dutt AIR 1967- Publishing scandalous matter

respecting the court after adjudication calculated to lower the authority
of the court and sense of confidence of the people in the administration
of justice

❖ Principle of Open Justice

According to the ‘Principle of Open Justice’, the media can effectively perform the
role of a watchdog supporting the discussion of courts without publishing the most
obviously prejudicial material specifically relevant to a
case. According to ‘Rules of Evidence’, the first and
foremost reasoning while publishing any pre-trial report,
or ongoing proceedings must be to consider the
presumption of innocence of the accused, until proven
guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Moreover,
inadmissible evidence such as allegations to the general
character of the accused, confessions obtained while in
police custody, opinion evidence, etc. shall not be
published by the media in a bid to present their own discourse of the case.

❖ Laws governing media trials

Statutory restraint on media trials can be exercised by way of the following:

▪ PCI Act- The Press Council of India is empowered under Section 13 of the
Act to maintain and improve the standard of Indian newspaper reporting and
review any material reported by any newspaper. Under Section 14 it is
empowered to censure the newspapers that are liable for professional
misconduct and publish work against the public interests.

▪ CTVN Act, 1995 and Rules, 1994- The CTVN rules lay down the tenets of
the Program Code, which regulates the type of programs that will be
broadcasted. The CTVN Act empowers the authorized officer under Sections
19 and 20 to prohibit the transmission of certain programs in the public
interest or the television network altogether to maintain public decency and
morality. Furthermore, the Bombay High Court in its decision in the Sushant
Singh Rajput’s death case has strengthened its stand on media trials, by
ruling that the Central Government was duty-bound to deal with complaints
regarding infringement of the tenets of Programme Code, in an
expedited manner.

▪ Sections 124A, 499 and 505 of IPC- The media trials can be regulated in
cases where the publications fall foul of Section 124A of IPC, thereby
committing the offence of sedition and Section 499 committing the offence of
criminal defamation through its publications. However, the fourth and fifth
exception under this Section exempts any publication of reports of
proceedings of the court, and opinion of merits of cases decided in court or
conduct of witnesses from the ambit of defamation. Section 505 can be used
against media where there is a publication with intent to cause any person of
armed forces to fail his duties, or instill fear in people to commit acts against
the state or public tranquility, or incite hatred and violence
among communities.

▪ Section 3 of Police (Incitement of Disaffection) Act, 1922- The

interpretation of this section under the Act can be used to regulate media in
instances where the media intentionally publishes anything that causes a lack
of faith in the police department.

▪ Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution- Article 14 is important since it

empowers an individual to seek equality before the law and equal protection of
the law. If the media causes prejudice to a trial, then it can no longer be termed
as a fair and just trial before the court. Article 21 i.e. Right to life, on the other
hand, is the most significant in this matter. Various judgments have expanded
the ambit of the right to life. Now it analogously includes the right to
reputation, right to privacy which can be invoked in cases of infringements by
media publications.

▪ Section 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Contempt of Court Act- Section 2 defines civil and

criminal contempt of court. Clause (c) of the said Act specifically mentions the
guidelines for publication i.e. publications that scandalize, prejudice, or
interfere with the judicial proceedings or administration of justice will amount
to contempt of the court. Section 3, 4, 5 further clarifies and give additional
guidelines that can be interpreted to differentiate between a fair publication
and a prejudicial publication.
❖ Consequences of the media trial on an ongoing proceeding
Some of the major consequences of the media trial on an ongoing proceeding are:

▪ Risk of a witness going hostile- Media trials can be really taxing on every person
involved in them. Preserving the identity of a witness becomes quite difficult
when the media sensationalizes a case. This gives rise to the witness experiencing
a threat to his life. Other factors such as undue pressure and harassment by the
media to the witness can turn them hostile in a bid to get out of the muddle as
soon as possible.

▪ Invasion of privacy of the parties involved- The media is often insensitive

towards the mental state of the parties involved especially the accused and the
victim. They invade their privacy which causes infringement of the Right to
Privacy guaranteed under Article 21 (Justice K S Puttaswamy Vs. Union of
India).

▪ Tarnishing the public image of the accused- The

Right to Reputation of the accused is also tarnished by
the media by the usage of slanderous and libelous
statements and innuendoes push the accused towards
individual guilt before the court. This has grave life-
long effects on the accused which persists even after
acquittal. The image made by the media during the
course of the trial remains in the minds of the people.
Thus, the accused even after acquittal remains a
convict in the eyes of the society at large.

▪ Ineffective Test Identification Parade- Releasing pictures of the suspects on media

platforms can expressly violate the rights available to the accused alongside growing
hurdles to any kind of judicial proceedings, especially rendering the process of
identification of accused through the method of Test Identification Parade ineffective.

❖ Judgments drawing a line between fair trial and free press

▪ In the case of the State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi,
the Supreme Court of India stated that a judge must insulate himself against
any media pressure and strictly be guided by the rules of law. This view was
taken to uphold the freedom of the press on the basis that the fair trial would
solely rest upon the judge who would be giving the final verdict regardless of
outside pressure by the media.

▪ In the case of Sidhartha Vashist @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
the SC took into account the danger of serious risk of prejudice if the media
exercises unregulated freedom. Moreover, the freedom of speech under Article
19(1) must be carefully and cautiously used, so as to prevent any hindrance or
interference with the administration of justice; which may lead to undesirable
results in matters sub judice before the courts.
❖ Conclusion:
The democratic structure of India calls for an apparatus at every stage to ensure a
maintenance of law and order coupled with justice as enshrined in our law of the land.
This is where the pillars upholding the same seeps in i.e. Legislature, Executive,
Judiciary and Media. It is somewhat implied that with great power not only comes
great responsibility but sometimes the undue advantage as well leading to the abuse of
the same as is evident from the Digital India Age.

The basis of our Criminal Jurisprudence is now under a threat of eroding the principle
of proving someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt which is at the hands of media
who have assumed themselves to be the adjudicators and forbearers of truth but on the
face of it, a rather misleading and controversial facet is run by them.

The moral and ethical standards of journalism back then were rigid as compared to the
present where the viewership is given utmost priority than the facts and circumstances
of a case. The similar was the story followed by media during our beloved Sushant
Singh Rajput's case which was over sensationalized to a point that the truth got
camouflaged in the same and the populace was unaware as to what actually struck
him up to several months. This is how a blessing in disguise of media has turned to a
curse in the obstruction of justice which needs to rectified at its earliest.