TRIAL BY MEDIA

BY:

PRIYA MURALI1

BALAJI HARISH IYER2

1
Priya Murali is a 2nd Year student at the Christ University, Bangalore.
Email Address: piya.nm@gmail.com, Phone: +91-9731-031-831
2
Balaji Harish Iyer is a 2nd Year student at the National Law University (Delhi).
Address: 303, Prof. Ghanshyam Singh Boys Hostel, National Law University, Sector 14, Dwarka, New Delhi
(110078) OR 62/14, Suchitra Apts., 62, Coles Road, Cox Town, Bangalore (560005)
Email Address: balaji.harish10@nludelhi.ac.in, Phone: +91-8800-260-752 or +91-9164-206-923

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2115609

 ABSTRACT
A media shackled by its government is an unhealthy thing; however, a media allowed to
run its mouth in an unaccountable manner may prove to be even more dangerous. While
there must be punishments for the heinous crimes committed every day, the process of
punishment should not encroach on the right of the accused for a free and fair trial in a
Court of law. The problem of media trials is becoming more and more prevalent today.
This article tries to analyse the problem of media trials by studying the various materials
available on the topic, such as newspaper articles on the most famous media trials of
India. I have come to the conclusion, after a fair analysis, that while the freedom of the
press must be maintained in a country governed by the principle of “rule of law”, there
must be a certain restraint to prevent the media from encroaching on the sole jurisdiction
of the Courts of law i.e., the administration of justice.

TRIAL BY MEDIA

1 INTRODUCTION
“Rights” means those freedoms which are essential for personal good as well as for
the good of the community; Part III of the Constitution of India contains the Fundamental
Rights of the people of the Republic of India: this charter of rights guarantees to the people
civil liberties so that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as the lawful
citizens of the country (Patel 1947).
These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies of the world,
such as equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association and
peaceful (and lawful) assembly, freedom to practice any Faith and the right to constitutional
remedies to protect the very civil liberties by means provided for within the Constitution
itself (Ibid 1); these rights grundnorm are fundamental as they have been incorporated into
the “fundamental law of the land” (Kesavananda Bharti v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC
1461). They are enforceable by the Courts subject to certain restraints; this means that the
civil liberties are not absolute, nor are they immune from Constitutional amendments (Tayal
and Jacob 2005: A-23).

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2115609

 In this essay, I have tried to analyse and understand the importance of the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
The question to be answered is: whether the free and open media should be allowed to
comment on on-going trials?
Today, with authoritarian governments in power around much of the world,
increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of
power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and transparency is
greater than ever (Assange 2008); however, should media agents be allowed to report on
trials; does it not affect the objective, rational and prudent mind of the judge?

2 THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

The Constitution contains the “right to freedom” in Articles 19, 20, 21 and 22, with
the view of guaranteeing the individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the
Constitution; inter alia, the “right to freedom” includes the “right to freedom of speech and
expression”.
This is the one right, the Holy Grail that allows the aam janata to participate in
activities of public interest; one may pass fair comment on the working of the Indian
democracy without fear of retaliation, (Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972
SC 1749) for each person is an arbiter of justice in their own conscience: authoritarian
governments, oppressive institutions and corrupt corporations should be subject to the
pressure, not merely of international diplomacy, freedom of international laws and periodic
elections, but of something far greater and stronger i.e., the consciences of people within
them.

2.1 Freedom of Press

It was said, “It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in speech
and press were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people peaceably to
assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. All these, though not identical, are
inseparable. They are cognate rights, and therefore are united in the First Article's assurance.”
(Thomas v. Collins, 323 US 516 (1945))
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”;
(UDHR 1948) in the very same context, the phrase “freedom of press” has not been expressly

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2115609

used in Art.19, but the freedom of expression includes the freedom of press (Ibid 1). This is
the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic
media and published materials, in which India ranks 122 nd of 178 countries ranked worldwide
(Reporters Without Borders 2010).
It is the primary function of the press to provide information, comprehensive and
objective, on all aspects of the country’s social, economic, political and legal life. The press
serves as a powerful solution of power by government officials and as a mean for keeping the
elected officials responsible to the people whom they were elected to serve.
It is therefore the duty of the judiciary to up hold the said right guaranteed by the
press and invalidate all the laws or administrative actions which interfere with the freedom of
press contrary to the Constitutional mandate. Newspapers and magazines not only survey the
news, but also opinions, ideas and ideologies, beside much else. They are supposed to guard
public interest by bringing to the fore the misdeeds, failings and lapses of the government, the
judiciary and the other bodies exercising governing power.
The Court has held that the freedom of press stands at higher footing than other
enterprises (Printers (Mysore) Ltd., v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, ILR 1984 Kar.
1217). In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (AIR 1995 SC 965), speaking about
the utility of freedom of press the Court observes:
“The expression “freedom of the press” has not been issued in Art.19
but it is comprehended within Art.19 (1) (a). The expression means
freedom from interference from authority which would have the effect
of the interference with the content and the circulation of the
newspapers and cannot be any interference with that freedom in the
name of public interest. Freedom of press is the heart of social and
political intercourse it is the primary duty of the Courts to up hold the
freedom of the press and in validate all laws or administrative actions
with interfere with it contrary to the constitutional mandate.”

2.2 Reasonable Restrictions

As Lord Denning observed in his famous book Road To Justice, “…the press is the
watchdog to see that every trial is conducted fairly, openly and above board, but the
watchdog may sometimes break loose and has to be punished for misbehaviour” (Dr Tiwari
2011).
 Reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the State to maintain public order, national
security, decency and morality; anything that disturbs public peace or public tranquillity is
identified to be a public disorder;(Om Prakash v. Emperor, AIR 1948 Nag. 199) mere
criticism however, does not necessarily disrupt this important order (Raj Bahadur Gond v.
State of Hyderabad, AIR 1953 Hyd. 277).
Laws such as the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) and the Prevention of Terrorist
Activities Act, 2002 (PoTA) have been used to limit press freedom. Under PoTA, a person
could be detained for up to six months for being in contact with a known terrorist or terrorist
organisation; although this Act was repealed in 2006, the former still continues.
For the first half century since independence on 15 August 1947, media control by the
state was the major constraint on the freedom of press in India. Indira Gandhi once said that
the All India Radio (AIR) is “a government organ [and] it is going to remain a government
organ….” (People’s Union for Civil Liberties 1982). With the beginning of liberalization in
the 1990’s, private control of the media has increased, leading to increasing independence
and greater scrutiny of the government.

2.3 Increased Scrutiny: Good or Bad?

While it cannot be denied that the true extent of the freedom of press in India is
debatable, considering the Indian press is dominated by a handful of media groups and
chains, it cannot be denied that the media has not played a role in shaping our government
and our laws.
It was well recognised by the makers of the Constitution that where there is a lack of
freedom and injustice enshrined in the law, there is a place for principled civil disobedience.
In R Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 264 (1995)) the Court held that the government
has no authority in law to impose a prior restraint upon publication of defamatory material
against its officials (Supra). Public authorities who apprehend that they or their colleagues
may be defamed could not prevent the press from publication of such material, and could take
an action for damages after the publications of such materials if and only if they are able to
prove that the publication was based on false facts (Supra). The Court held that no actions
could be initiated against the press if the publications were based on public records including
Court records (Supra).
For example, erstwhile Haryana Minister Venod Sharma was brought to his knees by
the press, (Dinker and Sharma 2009) and recently, the press has played a significant role in
matters such as the Commonwealth Games (CWG) scam involving the corrupt practices of
Organising Committee (OC) chief Suresh Kalmadi, the 2G spectrum allocation scam and the
Adarsh Housing scams – none of the persons involved in these scams affecting matters of
public interest can sue any newspaper that published material causing them public
embarrassment; even in the pre-independence era, the British Raj faced substantial
embarrassment at the hands of newspapers like the Kesari and the Amrita Bazaar Patrika.
However, it is to be seen whether this freedom of press granted to the open media by
the Constitution and enforced vehemently by the Courts is a bane or boon; there have been
many instances of the media conducting the trial of persons allegedly in public disrepute: this
endangers the person’s right to a free and fair trial in open Court; the debate in India rages
just as it does in the United Kingdom.

3 FREE AND FAIR TRIAL

Free and fair trial has been defined as “a trial by a neutral and fair Court, conducted so
as to accord each party the due process rights required applicable by law; of a criminal trial,
that the defendant’s constitutional rights have been respected.”
The right to a fair trial is seen as an essential right in all countries respecting the rule
of law; a trial in these countries that is deemed unfair will be typically restarted, or its verdict
quashed. Various rights associated with a fair trial are proclaimed in Art.10 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (Ibid 4), the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States of America, the Constitution of India, as well as numerous other constitutions and
declarations throughout the world.
Art.10, the key provision of the UDHR states that, “Everyone is entitled in full
equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” (Ibid 4)
This right is a norm of the international human rights law designed to protect
individuals from the unlawful and arbitrary curtailment or deprivation of other basic rights
and freedoms, the most prominent of which are the life and liberty of the person (Pejic 2000).
The fundamental importance of this right is illustrated by the extensive body of interpretation
it has generated over the decades (Ibid 9).
The right to a fair trial in India is the absolute right of every individual within the
territorial limits of the country vide Art.14 and Arts.20-22 of the Constitution. The Courts
place one’s right to live with dignity and integrity above the right to freedom of speech and
expression. There has always been a battle raging between the right to personal life and
liberty and the right to freedom of speech and expression. One may argue that the right to
personal liberty encompasses the right to freedom of speech and expression, but what of the
right to life with dignity, which is as much a part of Art.21 as the liberty to express one’s
self?
Fair trial is not just crucial to for the private benefit of the accused, but is also
necessary to reinforce the confidence of the general public in the Indian justice system. The
Supreme Court explained in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (Cri. LJ 2855
(2004)) that a “fair trial [obviously] would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair
prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or
prejudice for or against the accused, the witness, or the cause which is being tried is
eliminated.”

3.1 The General Goals of a Free and Fair Trial

The right to a fair trial is applicable to both the determination of an individual’s rights
and duties in a suit at law and with respect to the determination of any criminal charge
against them. The key general goals of a free and fair trial include (Ibid 9):
1. To bring to the awareness of the Court, the concerned authorities and the
general public the matter for the trial in question;
2. To encourage the Court to give a fair trial;
3. To obtain more information on the background of the trial that may possible
affect its outcome (International Commission of Jurists 1978); and,
4. To obtain more information regarding the conduct of the case, the legislation
under which the defendant is being tried and the nature of the case.
The Court often allows observers and monitors in trials so that they may present a
report of the fairness of the trial (Ibid 10). The publicity that the report receives may serve in
the short term to enhance a defendant’s chances for a fair appeal, for the general public may
sympathise with the condition of the under-trial (Ibid 10). However, the report on a trial is
typically oxymoronic: where on the one hand, it may serve the purpose of gaining sympathy;
on the other hand the same piece of article in a newspaper may serve to incite the general
public against the defendant. This sort of thing typically jeopardises the right to a free and
fair trial granted by law to any defendant.

3.2 Psychology of the Media

Mainstream media reporting typically tends to distort the data. Practically, the first
rule of journalism is to sensationalise. “Making a mountain out of a mole hill” is what drives
the media these days, be it with what Kareena Kapoor’s latest fashion statement is, or be it
with an ongoing trial.
Another thing that media does is to create causal connections; any scientist with an
objective mind and an unbiased outlook has it clear that an association or correlation between
two subject matters does not mean that one causes the other; but, if it is said that “there’s a
strong connection”, readers and viewers assume it means causation or causal connection.
World renowned Indian-Canadian stand-up comedian Russell Peters got it right when he said,
during one of his shows:
“…they [kinda] just perpetuate stereotypes about people. They don’t
tell you that’s what they’re doing, they don’t go, ‘Hey, this is what
you need to think,’ but they know how people’s brains work…what
they do is, they show you an image of somebody of a different [racial]
background and then they show you an alternate image…they don’t
say the two images are together, they kind of present it like, ‘What do
you think?’…they show you an Arab guy and an explosion…they
convince us that things aren’t what we think they are…they show you
all the violent things…they never show you all the normal [Arab]
people, doing the regular [Arab] things…those guys are boring. You
don’t want to see them; you want to see the crazies….”
Sensationalising reports regarding on-going trials tend to affect the minds of the
people as mentioned above. For example, in the case of Kannada actress Maria Susairaj, the
media still taunts the actress who has been freed by the Court after serving the minimum
sentence for destruction of evidence during her period as an under-trail. The constant
repetition by the media about the facts of the case, without providing the details and
circumstances under which the Court found it relevant to free Ms. Susairaj, the media
generates in our minds a “criminal version” of that person, which may not actually exist.

4 THE EVER-RAGING BATTLE BETWEEN SPEECH AND LIFE

As is clear from the world ranking of India as the 122 nd country that grants the most
freedom of speech and expression (Ibid 5), it may be safe to say that the media in India is one
of the freest in terms of the legal constraints.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of the independent nation once
remarked, “I would rather have a completely free press with all the dangers involved in the
wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated press.” Clearly, the great man could
not foresee the danger that this freedom places the administration of justice. In this context,
the thoughts of Lord Atkin regarding power is more fitting with the notion of liberty. It was
also observed in Indian Express Newspapers that liberty does corrupt into license and is
prone to be abused (Supra). Every institution is liable to be abused, and every liberty, if left
unbridled, has the tendency to become a license which would lead to disorder and anarchy. It
has to be remembered that freedom of expression is not absolute, unlimited or unfettered and
in all circumstances, as giving on an unrestricted freedom of the speech and expression,
would amount to uncontrolled license.
It seems that every institution in the country rages with the battle between the freedom
of press and the right of an individual to live a life of dignity: I have already mentioned in
previous contexts that the Indian Courts guarantee the right to freedom of press to the media
by disallowing members of the government or even the society at large from interfering the in
the reporting of matters of public interest.
In an oxymoronic twist, the Courts also guarantee to every individual the right to live
and enjoy a dignified and honourable life, granted under Art.21 of the Constitution. These
two grants by the Courts go head to head thanks to the reincarnation of the media as a janata
ki adalat.
The media completely overlooks the thin, but vital line dividing and thereby,
preventing the inter-mixing of the definitions of “accused” and “convict”. This puts at stake
the Golden Principles of presumption of innocence until proven guilty and guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.

4.1 Trial by Media

Media trials are defined as regional or national news “events” in which the criminal
justice system is co-opted by the media as a source of high drama and entertainment. They
involve cases with characteristics similar to criminal cases portrayed in the entertainment
mass media — human interest laced with mystery, sex, bizarre circumstances and famous or
powerful people (Surette 1989).
In certain cases, the media conducts “sting operations” and private investigations to
expose the scams prevalent in the society, often quoting “unnamed, but reliable” sources.
They also sensationalise and create causal connections between things that are and things that
are not; they feed the psychology of their readers and viewers by providing them images of
things as those that they do not seem to be. The Guardian (Christian 2007) newspaper in the
United Kingdom admonishes trial by media in saying:
 “None of the nine men arrested yesterday has been charged with
anything let alone brought to trial but still the media is blatantly pre-
judging the outcome. ‘Al-Qaida was behind plot to behead soldier,’
screamed the Mail today while the Times headlined with ‘How al-
Qaida brought Baghdad to Birmingham’. Unnamed senior security
sources are quoted everywhere as saying a plot by a ‘ruthless gang’
has been uncovered to kidnap and behead a Muslim soldier or if they
had not found one, a member of the public or anyone supposedly
‘collaborating’ with the police or government. The Mail even runs
detailed profiles of four of those arrested including details about the
medical condition of a child of one of them and at least two names.”
This builds a public opinion against the accused even before the case comes into the
cognizance of the Court. As a note of illustration, it is worthwhile to take the case of the
Aarushi Talwar murder. In the recent years of Indian journalism history, this case has been
one of the most sensationalised, thanks to the shoddy investigation conducted by the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the various twists and turns that have arisen in the course
of the investigation conducted.
In that case, when the victim was murdered, it was found that the servant Hemaraj
was missing; the media at once presumed him to be absconding after committing the
gruesome killing. At the next juncture in the investigation, when the dead body of the servant
was recovered, the media shifted its focus and blamed the parents Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr.
Nupur Talwar for an “honour killing”, thereby inciting calls for justice against these two
individuals by the general public, even before the Court has been able to conclusively close
this on-going case.
If such excessive publicity in the media about a suspect before trial prejudices a fair
trial or results in characterizing him as a person who had indeed committed the crime, it
amounts to an obstruction of justice under §7(1)(d) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
calling for proceedings for contempt of Court against the media. Unfortunately, rules
designed to regulate journalistic conduct are inadequate to prevent the encroachment of civil
and fundamental rights.

4.2 Free Speech or Fair Trial?

It’s a golden rule in the justice system to follow the rule of law and to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt (in the criminal justice administration), for the law is governed by
the senses and not by emotions. A person is presumed to be innocent unless he is held guilty
by the competent Court, as credited in the Justice Malimuth Committee Report (Kannabiran
2003). In the case of media trials however, the trend is to declare a person guilty right at the
time of the making the arrest in the process of investigation. The media forgets that its
primary duty is to report the facts and the news, and to raise public issues; it is not there to
pass prima facie judgement.
It is only too well known that in the case of Mohd. Afzal v. NCT of Delhi
(MANU/DE/1026 (2003)), concerning the conviction for the infamous Delhi Blasts, the
media had a role in handing Afzal over to the noose; it played an excessive role in affecting
the public conscience even before the accused was formally tried in Court. In his judgement,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice O. Venkatarama Reddy stated, “(t)he incident, which resulted in heavy
casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only
be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded (to the offender).” (Supra) Similarly
Jayendra Saraswati, the Sankaracharya of Kanchipuram, was accused of sacrificing the lives
of two mill workers based solely on newspaper reports.
The most unfortunate thing regarding the role of the media is that in the coverage of a
“sensational” crime, the media begins adducing its “evidence” much before the Court takes
the case into its cognizance. The media is not the abode of justice, and is therefore not
regulated by the traditional rules of evidence laid down in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
which govern what can and cannot be produced in Court to convict an accused.
For example, in cases involving rape and sexual assault, the past sexual history of the
prosecutrix may find its way into the papers and this may compromise the quality of justice
granted to her. The Supreme Court was largely criticised for its decision in the case of
Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC 815): in this case, an illiterate, orphan, tribal
girl was raped by two policemen on duty within the compound of the police station. Since the
young girl Mathura, had eloped with her boyfriend, she was viewed as a woman of “loose
moral character, habituated to sexual intercourse.” The Supreme Court overruled the decision
of the Bombay High Court and acquitted the policemen involved in the crime.
Another kind of media trial involves the continued defamation that media causes to
persons acquitted by the Courts on grounds of lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Such
victims of media trial find it difficult to resurrect the social standing they held before the
public outcry. The media in its quest for sensationalism does not realise that such an exposure
is likely to jeopardise the right to a life of dignity. This has been clear in the recent case of
Maria Susairaj where the national media constantly follows the accused, now acquitted by the
Court, eventually driving her and her family into cover and out of Bangalore.
Let alone the accused and the witnesses appearing in relation to a particular case, the
media does not even seem to give the lawyers representing the accused a breath of relief. It is
the right of every accused to be fairly and adequately represented in the Court. In the United
States of America, this right forms a part of the famous “Miranda Rights” declared in the case
of Miranda v. Arizona (384 US 436 (1966)). The researchers deem to call it a moment of
humiliation for the press and a blatant abuse of the freedom of speech and expression granted
to them when the openly sledged Mr. Ram Jethmalani appearing for the case of Manu
Sharma in the High Court of Delhi. Lawyers from Noida refused to defend the cases of the
two accused in the Nithari serial murders.

4.3 Why Media Trials?

Journalism has recently come under the pressure to push up their TRP ratings and
circulation numbers. Everyone manipulates the media to serve their own purpose, and the
media in turn manipulates the minds of the general public to serve its own interests. With
new channels and newspapers and magazines mushrooming nationally, each media agent
tries to protect its own interest, even if it means degrading the private interests of individuals
under trial.
Nobody questions the intentions of the media as it exposes lacunae in criminal
investigation or exposes the corrupt and malafide interests of people in power, such as the
case with the exposure of people like Suresh Kalmadi, MK Kannimozhi, A. Raja and Nira
Radia. The problem is when the media ultra vires its legitimate jurisdiction of reporting the
facts to pass judgement and not fair comment on the criminally accused and under-trials.
Media trial is slowly transforming itself into media verdicts and media punishment: this is
definitely a transgression into the arena of the Courts of Law established in this country to
ensure that justice prevails. Clearly, the media has escaped its limits.

4.4 Affecting the Subconscious

The most worrying factor about media trials is the fact that they may tend to prejudice
the Judges presiding over a particular case. While the US takes on the view that Jurors and
Judges cannot be influenced by media publication, (Cardozo 1921) the United Kingdom is of
the view that Judges are bound to be subconsciously affected by the publications regarding
such materials. This is quite clear from the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the
Mohd. Afzal case (Supra). The researchers bear the same opinion as the renowned Anglo-
Saxon jurists: if in case a Judge passes a verdict contradicting the media verdict, he or she is
deemed to be bought and biased.
As has been mentioned before, the media has no doubt come to the rescue of the
citizens while exposing the frauds of people like Suresh Kalmadi and A. Raja; the media has
also spurred awareness through publishing. However, this can never be an excuse for the
blatant misuse of the powers entrusted by the Courts to these vehicles of truth. There must be
a viable solution for the ever increasing problem.

5 RESTRICT TO REGULATE
The Press Council of India (PCI) was established to preserve freedom of the press and
to improve the standards of news reporting in India. Under the §14 of the Press Council Act,
1978, the PCI may “warn, admonish or censure” any newspaper against which there has been
a complaint of gross negligence in reporting, and “require the newspaper to publish therein…
any particulars relating to any inquiry…against a newspaper….” However, these measures
are available only after the news piece has been published. Further, the PCI has published a
guideline for ethical journalism under §13(2)(b). The PCI may also exercise censorship with
respect to pending trials, but has no powers with respect to how pre-trial reporting can affect
the administration of justice (Human Rights Features 2007).
The 200th Report of the Law Commission of India (LCI) entitled Trial by Media: Free
Speech vs. Fair Trial under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Court Act,
1971) by former Supreme Court Judge M. Jagannatha Rao has made recommendations to
address the damaging effect of media sensationalism. The report recommends a prohibition
on news reports of anything that is prejudicial towards the accused – this restriction shall
operate from the time of arrest (UCLA International Institute 2006): the LCI recommends
that the beginning of a criminal case should be from the time of the first arrest made and not
the filing of the charge sheet (Supra). At present, such publication is contempt only if a
charge sheet has been filed in a criminal case (Supra). Another recommendation has been to
empower the High Court to direct the media to postpone publication of case material only
after the final verdict has been delivered (Supra).

6 CONCLUSIONS
Heinous and horrific crimes must be condemned and the media would be justified in
calling for the perpetrators to be punished by due process of law. However, it has no right to
ultra vires the sole jurisdiction of the Courts of Law of the land.
 While a media shackled by the government is unhealthy, as has been clear from
various instances in dictatorships across the world, the implications of continued
unaccountability are even more damaging. The Supreme Court has in fact, in MP Lohia v.
State of West Bengal (ANR INSC 83 (2005)), cautioned the owners, publishers, editors and
journalists of a leading magazine that had reported the facts of a case that was sub judice,
thus interfering with the administration of justice. The reputation of the media agents rests on
unbiased and objective reporting – media trials and verdicts can only serve to undermine the
credibility and bring them paramount embarrassment. It is therefore, in their own interest for
the media to ensure that while reporting a case, the do not obstruct the course of the law of
the land.
 REFERENCES
1. Patel, Vallabhai (1947): “Interim Report On Fundamental Rights.” Indian Kanoon,
Viewed on 3 July 2011, (http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/747690/).
2. Tayal, B B & A Jacob (2005): Indian History, World Developments And Civics
(Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh: Avichal Publishing Company).
3. Assange, Julian (2008): “Why The Media (And Particularly Wikileaks) Is
Important?” WikiLeaks, 2008, Viewed on 5 July 2011
(http://www.wikileaks.org/About.html).
4. Art.10, Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Viewed on 3 July 2011,
(http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).
5. “Press Freedom Index.” Reporters Without Borders, 2010, Viewed on 5 July 2011,
(http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html) (last viewed on 7 July 2011).
6. Dr Tiwari, Mahendra: “Freedom Of Press In India: Constitutional Perspectives.” The
Practical Lawyer, Viewed on 3 July 2011, (http://www.ebc-
india.com/practicallawyer/index2.php?
option=com_content&itemid=1&do_pdf=1&id=6752).
7. “Freedom Of The Press.” People's Union For Civil Liberties, 1982, Viewed on 4 July
2011, (http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Media/freedom-press.htm).
8. Vashisht, Dinker and Venod Sharma (January 30 2009):“The Man Who Could’ve
Been CM” The Financial Express, Viewed on 4 July 2011,
(http://www.financialexpress.com/news/venod-sharma-the-man-who-could-have-
been-cm/417007/).
9. Pejic, Jelena (March 2000): A Basic Guide To Legal Standards And Practice (New
York: Lawyers Committee For Human Rights).
10. “Guidelines For ICJ Observers To Trials.” International Commission of Jurists, 1978
11. Surette, Ray (1989): “Media Trials”. 4 Journal Of Criminal Justice 17, 293, Viewed
on 7 July 2011,
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0047235289900342).
12. Christian, Louise (1 February 2007): ”Media Trials And Errors.” The Guardian,
Viewed on 7 July 2011,
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/01/post1041).
13. Kannabiran, K G (2003): “Safeguard The Rights Of The Accused.” People's Union
For Civil Liberties, Viewed on July 8 2011,
(http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2003/malimath.htm).
14. Cardozo (1921): “Nature of the Judicial Process.” Lecture IV, Adherence to
Precedent: The Subconscious Element in the Judicial Process (Yale University Press)
15. “Trial By Media.” Human Rights Features, 2007, Viewed on 11 July 2011,
(http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF164.htm).
16. “India: Free Speech Vs. Free Trial.” UCLA International Institute, 1 September 2006,
Viewed on 11 July 2011, (http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?
parentid=52205).