Media Trials: Justice at the Cost of Fair Trial
Introduction The Media is often celebrated as the “fourth pillar,” of every democracy, considered as a watchdog which invariably ensures transparency, exposes wrongdoing, and gives voice to the people who are powerless. In India, the media role has been very significant. From the days of print media to the age of social media, the media has significantly evolved as a powerful institution which is capable of shaping narratives, building movements, and even to a large extent influencing the course of justice. The Constitution of India does not specifically mention the press, but has very well protected it by virtue of Article 19(1)(a) which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, the Supreme Court has time and again affirmed that this freedom also extends to the press thereby recognising that in a liberal democracy the right to information cannot be separated from the right to speak. Yet it is important to note that as Article 19 is not an absolute fundamental right and allows “reasonable restrictions,” the judiciary is considered as the guardian of rights, and is committed to ensuring that every accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by court. However, the influence of media trials has begun to challenge this presumption. In today’s era where news channels, social media run parallel investigations and deliver instant verdicts, and if we analyse this from the side accused, this can be harmful as it results in public shaming long before the court delivers a reasoned order and for the judiciary this means carrying the heavy burden of independence while being under constant public scrutiny. But the positive role of the media cannot be ignored as it has enhanced accountability in cases where the system takes too long, such as in the Jessica Lal murder case, the Priyadarshini Mattoo rape case, and the Nitish Katara killing case, in all these cases relentless coverage by media ensured that justice was not buried in any sense by power or privilege[1]. Similarly, nowadays we witness match-fixing scandals in cricket or financial scams involving industrialists came to light because journalists dared to investigate. In such moments the media very well lived up to its role as a democracy’s conscience-keeper. But it is also important to see that the same media has also stumbled in many cases. Increasing coverage by the media is driven less by truth than by competition for ratings, sensational headlines by media, and the race to break news first of high-profile cases affects, from the Aarushi Talwar double murder to the Sushant Singh Rajput investigation very well shows how quickly narratives are built. Which undermines Article 21 as it guarantees fair trial and is considered as the basic structure principle of judicial independence. Constitutional Framework: Free Speech, Fair Trial The Constitution of India protects both democratic freedoms and also the procedural safeguards to a great extent. The intersection is seen when we analyse Article 19(1)(a) which talks about freedom of speech and expression and Article 21 guaranteeing fair trial which is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty. Freedom of Expression Article 19(1)(a) – The fundamental right of Freedom of speech and expression under the article 19(1)(a) has been described as an integral part of our democracy. The Supreme Court time and again held that a free press is very important for the purpose of public accountability. In the landmark case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras[2], the apex court struck down pre-censorship on political writing, thereby emphasising that free expression is very much necessary for democracy. Later, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[3]The Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act which criminalised online speech which is deemed “offensive,” and unconstitutional for its chilling effect it created which affected article 19(1)(a). Fair Trial as a fundamental Right under Article 21– Article 21 declares that “no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law” and the Supreme court has interpreted this time and again and included the right to a fair trial as an integral part of article 21. In the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[4], the hon’ble court held that “procedure” must be fair, just, and reasonable making it inseparable from Article 21 protections. But in today’s era, media sensationalism can however erode this guarantee as the premature pronouncement of guilt in high-profile cases such as Rhea Chakraborty case, was convicted guilty by media in the Sushant Singh Rajput investigation which showcases how public narratives can often undermine the presumption of innocence taking it as a cornerstone of fair trial rights. Balancing: Media trail and Fair trial Analysis The constitutional framework reflects free speech and expression but media interference can threaten the fairness of trials and influence the judiciary. As we know, Judicial independence is very essential for the rule of law, but excessive media pressure can affect this in a negative way, the media nowadays doesn’t tell people what to think but tells what to think about, if we look at it during the Jessica Lal case the coverage by media turned it into a negative spot as media framed stories through angles portraying accused as criminal; like in Shushant Singh Rajput case it declared Rhea Chakraborty as a “gold digger” and Nirbhaya’s rapists as “monsters”, this invariably shapes emotional responses and repeated exposure of crime coverage by media influences judiciary and demands are for harsher punishments as once a dominant media narrative sets then dissenting views disappear because of social pressure, which was seen in the Arushi Talwar case[7]. Therefore, we can very well say that the media doesn’t showcase reality, it constructs reality. Case Studies Jessica Lal Murder Case – When Jessica Lal who was a model shot dead, Manu Sharma who was a son of a politician was accused and later he was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Media in this case highlighted witness intimidation and investigative lapses which had led to retrial and subsequently