Author: Prachi Mangla, Student at IILM Universit)
The so-called “media trial” has turned into a burning problem in India raising concerns as to how liberated media influences public opinions and how it interferes with the work of the court. This work seeks to discuss what media trials entail to the legal system, human rights, and democracy.
What Are Media Trials?
Media trials are situations where media serves as a decisive factor in influencing people’s attitude to a court case mostly well before the judges deliver their verdict. When a person is arrested, after some time then the public starts feeling that the person is guilty even before he or she is proven to be so this is against the principle of the presumption of innocence. Big cases are who and what the media investigates by itself, informs the public and tells a story that may change people’s perception and influence operations of the courts.
This was discussed more with the increasing intensity of news at the end of the 1900s and beginning of the 2000s, when news aired around the clock, without interruption. Thus, media trials have started in India, and some of the examples which prove this are the Aarushi Talwar murder case and Jessica Lal murder.
The Constitutional Framework
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India provides Right to Free Speech and Expression. This provision is strategic in a democratic society because it frees the media to carry out activities unhindered. However, this freedom is not absolute in that. However, freedom of expression is restricted by Article 19(2) where certain reasonable restrictions are placed where such freedom compromises matters that may be prejudicial to the outcome of court proceedings. The apparent difficulty is in determining where the free flow of information and particularly through the media, ends in order to respect the same virtues as well as what should be the start of the right to fair trial of the Ivy League education trained lawyer who stands in front of a jury of his peers.
In this sense, the judiciary has repeatedly stressed the need to sustain this balance of power. In connection with this, the Supreme Court has found that consideration of various cases can prevent people interested in the currently broadcasting series of criminal trials from having an unbiased opinion, critical thinking due to the endless coverage of trials in media sources. The principle of fair trial is supplied under articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution which provide for the right to fair hearing and the right to an advocate.
Media Trials as a subject area relates heavily to the media through the techniques of trials that involve the consideration of the impact statement.
Prejudice and Public Perception
This among these is one of the most far reaching consequences of media trials; prejudice. This is true because when the media is involved especially in covering a criminal case, it is not easy to change perception of the public if an accused is innocent especially if the media is presenting the accused as guilty in the process and in the public domain. In the Aarushi Talwar case where the media painted her parents with suspicion therefore inciting the public to condemn them earlier trials without sufficient evidence.
This is because the media operates as a ‘public court’ this makes it easy for prejudicial judgment otherwise termed as a ‘kangaroo court’ to be made instead of sound legal processes. This poses a lot of risks for the society and takes the blame of making judicial system uncredible for society bringing out mishaps in the judicial procedures.
Pressure on the Judiciary
In the light of the fines described above, the media trial is not only distorting people’s perception about the justice delivery system but also increases pressure on judiciary unnecessarily. Even if the judges are supposed to be fair and prevent interfering with the case’s progress and coming to a decision, they often can turn into angels facing a highly publicized case. Sometimes, the threat of protests and criticism by the public or in the media can influence judicial proceedings thus the fairness of the trial.
For instance, civil trial judges can be intimidated by the media having covered the same trial and therefore, pass verdicts based on what the public would want instead of being guided by the legal position of the case. Such a situation raises fundamental questions on the integrity of the judiciary, and respect towards the rule of law.
Damage to Reputation
Media trials affect the reputations of people involved in court cases as a consequence of the practice. Despite this, peoples’ private and professional lives can be severely tarnished even when the accused person will not be convicted. The problem arises from the fact that after the media has worked on a story, the common populace is most likely set in its ways, and thus, even when the courts have found the accused not guilty, the stain will still be there.
This has been well captured in the Godhra riot case of 2002 wherein certain individuals were consigned to the criminal list based on media depiction that was later on declared politically motivated by the courts. As much as the media bears the responsibility of entwining certain patterns into the accounts concerning certain people, they quite often become the outcasts and their lives change significantly even after the legal trials have been over.
The Responsibilities of Journalism
Due to the enormous consequences of the media trial, society requires credible journalism. The media needs to comprehend that its primary duty is to be the voice of the people providing information and forums in which citizens express their views regarding the issues not a court of law that convicts people. Journalism standards should be ethical ones, which means that the accuracy and fairness of the reports should not hinder legal procedures.
To mitigate the adverse effects of media trials, several measures can be implemented:
Guidelines for Reporting: The clear set of rules for the covering of the ongoing trials will prevent the falsified and sensationalist reporting and will not allow the journalists to make up anything they want.
Training for Journalists: With respect to the first solution a training aimed at increasing the legal awareness of the staff and at raising awareness on the effects of media coverage on the judicial processes can be provided.
Judicial Oversight: Judicial systems of a country should be very vigilant and sensitive towards the media disclosures and trials being conducted by other courts if the disclosure is so injurious and detrimental to the case.
Public Awareness: This is why it is relevant to continue raising public awareness regarding the work of the judicial system and the fact that any suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
Conclusion
Media trials are considered a difficult test for the legal framework in India as they jeopardise justice and the right to a fair trial for a defendant. Thus, the media is the crucial element in informing people and monitoring power, however, it should accomplish this mission responsibly and knowing the outcomes of its actions. The duality of freedom of speech as a media freedom and freedom of the accused and the therefore results of the balancing for the well-being of democracy and the judiciary cannot be overemphasised. Given such realities, all players in the society including media, judiciary and the public must support justice and fairness as these issues remain indispensable in the society.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are media trials, and how do they affect the judicial process in India?
Media trials refer to the intense coverage and scrutiny by the media of ongoing legal cases, often leading to public opinion being shaped before a formal verdict is reached. This phenomenon can create a presumption of guilt against the accused, undermining the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” The media’s portrayal of cases can influence not only public perception but also judicial proceedings, as judges may feel pressured by public sentiment and media narratives. This can compromise the integrity of the judicial process and the right to a fair trial, as seen in high-profile cases like the Aarushi Talwar and Jessica Lal murder cases.
How does the Indian Constitution address the issues related to media trials?
The Indian Constitution provides for the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), which allows the media to operate freely. However, this freedom is not absolute; Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions to prevent prejudicial reporting that may affect ongoing court proceedings. The judiciary has emphasized the need to balance media freedom with the right to a fair trial, as outlined in Articles 21 and 22, which ensure the right to a fair hearing and legal representation. Courts have repeatedly highlighted the potential for media coverage to create biased public opinions that can interfere with the judicial process.
What are the potential consequences of media trials for individuals involved in legal cases?
Media trials can have severe consequences for the individuals involved, including damage to their reputations and personal lives. Even if an accused person is acquitted, the negative portrayal in the media can leave a lasting stigma, affecting their social and professional standing. The intense scrutiny and sensationalism associated with media trials can also lead to mental health issues for the accused and their families, as they navigate public condemnation based on media narratives rather than factual evidence. This was notably evident in cases like the Godhra riots, where individuals faced societal backlash despite later judicial findings that cleared them of wrongdoing
