Author – MANIK TINDWANI, Student at UNIVERSITY FIVE YEAR LAW COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN.
The Father of our Nation appositely remarked “Freedom of the press is a precious privilege that no country can forego.” Freedoms and liberties are the soul of our constitution. These make democracy exist in our country and also allow media houses to assume the responsibility of spreading awareness among all the people. Media plays an intrinsic role in democracy but what happens if media goes ultra vires? Media being the fourth pillar of democracy has aided in its structuring but now the trends are turning negative. This research paper aims at probing the legal validity of the Media Trials in India while elucidating its conflict with the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
KEY WORDS: Article 19(1)(a), Article 19 (2), Indian Constitution, Fundamental Rights, Media Trials, Abuse of Fundamental Rights.
A. INTRODUCTION:
Since inception of the era of globalization, it has been observed that with increase in media technologies and expansion of audience mass media has been practicing acts which are performed with the same motive as the big business houses have been doing business with, which is to earn profit. Derived with profit motives, under the influence of big business houses, media personnel often indulge in practices they are not authorized for and ‘Media Trial’ is one of those practices.
In recent times, when we were locked down in our homes, the only nexus with the rest of the world was Media acting as ‘frontline covid warriors’, but this fact can also not be denied that as authority brings with it responsibility, the rights are accompanied by reasonable restrictions. Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the “Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression”, is also subject to reasonable restrictions.
Media trial is a practice which media personnel often exercise whereby they conduct a parallel investigation along with investigation being performed by the authorized legal organizations and deliver a verdict even before the case knocks the door of the Hon’ble Court, merely based on fallacious assumptions, creating undue pressure on investigation agencies. Owing to this Media has earned the title of ‘Public Court’. Though ‘Media Trials’ are supported by the public but are subject to numerous violations of law of the land.
B. MEDIA TRIALS CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT:
When functions of any Court are interfered with or are influenced it is not less than ‘Contempt of Court’. As per the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, media personnel can be punished for Contempt of Court if he or she publishes anything which prejudices a fair trial and if that impacts the impartiality of the Court to decide a case on its own merits. Conducting parallel investigation without authorization, giving verdict without considering the basic principles of jurisprudence and evidence, and that too based on fallacious assumptions is not less than “undue interference with the administration of justice”, which constitutes Contempt of Court.
C. MEDIA TRIALS CONSTITUTE DEFEMATION:
Ex facie it is also observed that media pinpoints innocent persons, and they are treated as “television items” keeping at stake the reputation and social image of the person for TRP(s). After that, even if they are acquitted by the Hon’ble Court on grounds of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, they are unable to resurrect their previous image. Therefore, it would be right to remark that ‘Media Trials’ defame innocent persons and thus defeat the purpose of a fair trial. This practice affects the dignity of an individual and is strict infraction of Article 21, which guarantees the “Right to Live with Dignity”. This ruins the social life of such person causing mental harassment and sometimes may cause severe mental injury to a person or might induce that person to commit suicide. Inducing any person to commit suicide is a serious felony punishable under Section 306 of India Penal Code, 1860. It was witnessed in Sushant Singh Rajput Case (2020) where his girlfriend was succumbed to ‘mental harassment’ by media. Media however escapes the liability, though all this is ex facie illegal. Defamation through ‘Media Trials’ was witnessed in Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs The State Of Maharashtra ( Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2016, Criminal Application No. 1448 of 2016) , Maria Monika Susairaj vs State Of Gujarat, (C.R. No. 347/2008, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1337 of 2008) and very popularly known Rhea Chakraborty v/s State of Bihar and Ors. (Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 225/2020). Media
ignores the accuracy of facts, on the basis on such inaccurate facts they make assumptions, and based on such fallacious assumptions they pre-pronounce verdicts. In Sushant Singh Rajput Case, false statements and misinformation by media caused distress in public, they were commenting on evidence without ascertaining factual matrix. The media disrespects the basic assumption of “innocent till proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt” and interferes with ‘Right to Fair Trial and Investigation’. It tries to turn an accident into a sensational drama and prejudices the public.
D. MEDIA TRIALS INFRINGE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY:
In India, Courts have reasonable powers and authority to know personal information as it can prove “material” to the case. But Media, in name of investigation, is invading into the privacy of witnesses which may also pose risk to their life at some instances. In the current scenario, privacy is not less than a precious possession, as was agreed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2017 through its Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v/s Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 ( “Privacy Judgement”) also popularly known as “Aadhar Judgement”, and should not be infringed. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “Whereas this right to control the dissemination of personal information in the physical and virtual space should not amount to a right of total eraser of history, this right, as a part of the larger right to privacy, has to be balanced against other fundamental rights like the freedom of expression, or freedom of media, fundamental to a democratic society.”
E. MEDIA TRIALS INFLUENCE IMPARTIAL JUSTICE:
It would not be wrong to say that every institution which is structured by humans is susceptible to influence. Judiciary is an institution but is constituted by people only and thus has a sociological and psychological tendency to get influenced. Media influences ‘public opinion’ and judges, being a part of the public, are often exposed to media’s prejudices. It cannot be denied that it was the only reason why the Jury was abolished after K.M. Nanavati v/s State of Maharashtra (1962 AIR 605 1962 SCR Supl) . Owing to public pressure in support of the accused, induced by news articles, all the Jury members pronounced the verdict in favour of the accused except one, Reginald Pierce. He said in an interview that, “They were tremendously against me and berated me relentlessly after I had made my stand clear. If the crowds outside had known who the lone dissenter was, they would have lynched me. But I saw the evidence and it was apparent that he killed him.” It is observed that under public pressure Jury found it difficult to filter facts from fiction. It was the first case of ‘Media Trial’ in India and the repercussions were derogatory to administration of impartial justice. Thus, judges may also be “subconsciously influenced” by ‘Media Trials’. Also, due to the emergence of a new wave of Judicial Politicism as Justice Katju expressed during his discussion with Professor Faizan Mustafa, that judges are often involved in judicial politics attracting large public interest. If this practice is followed then it will put the very essence of the country at stake. Biased reporting by broadcasting partial information or emphasizing more on a single thing derived with the motive of profit is strictly in violation of journalism ethics.
F. MEDIA TRIALS VIOLATE P.C.I NORMS:
It was reported numerous times when the Media acted in violation of the PCI (Press Council of India) Rules and norms. The apex institution has not been able to pose enough deterrence on News channels and Media to bar them from continuing such practices. Media platforms often escape their liability by taking defence of “mistake of fact”, or by giving some “justification”. Mistake of fact or miss-interpretation of a valid fact is a defence to misdemeanors. Also, on commission of such misdemeanors as well, the Media platforms can escape the liability by giving justification or by stating the reason for commission of such act. They also escape by stating some instances where ‘Media Trial’ proved a great help for securing justice to the parties. It is right that ‘Media Trial’ helped in protecting the judicial interest of the country, as was witnessed in Santosh Kumar Singh v/s State Th. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 747 , Manu Sharma v/s State of Delhi, (2010) 6 SCC 1 or State v/s Vikas Yadav & Vishal Yadav, (2016) 9 SCC 541 but it must be noted that in all these cases the verdict was pronounced and trials and investigation were conducted before role of media came into play. It would be apt to remark that Media has responsibility to keep a check on investigation agencies but they have no authority to conduct such investigations parallely.
G. MEDIA TRIALS VIOLATE ARTICLE 19:
Precisely, it could be said that Media has misused the Rights entitled to them under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, motivated by profits and big business house which directly or indirectly pose an influence over the Media. In Harijai Singh & Ots v/s Vijay Kumar (AIR 1997 SC 73), Supreme Court appositely remarked that “… it has to be remembered that this freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of the speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled license. If it were wholly free even from reasonable restraints it would lead to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is not to be misunderstood as to be a press free to disregard its duty to be responsible”. Media Trials have always been in violation of Article 19, as Article 19(2) considers, inter alia, ‘contempt of court’, ‘defamation’ and infringement of the fundamental rights of others as reasonable restrictions forming grounds of abrogation of exercise of such right.
H. CONCLUSION:
In Harijai Singh Case (1996) also Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “In fact, the element of responsibility must be present in the conscience of the journalists. In an organised society, the rights of the press have to be recognised with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other things must be safeguarded. The protective cover of press freedom must not be thrown open for wrong doings. If a newspaper publishes what is improper, mischievously false or illegal and abuses its liberty it must be punished by Court of Law”. There is urgent need to check the prejudice effect caused by a sensational reporting of subjudice matter. There is need to balance “freedom of press” and “right to fair trial and investigation”.
Government and Judiciary must take requisite actions for meeting these needs. Courts must prefer to use their judicial powers under Section 327 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for in camera trials to avoid Media Trials in sensitive cases. Government must advise the apex body i.e. PCI in creating reasonable deterrence to avoid such misdemeanours committed by Media platforms in ultra vires exercise of their rights. Also, Media shall itself assume its responsibility of not hindering rights of people it is deemed to protect. Though they don’t have right to investigate parallely but they are bestowed with the unstinted right to probe into the matter after the verdict is pronounced.
I. REFERENCES:
[1]. M.K. Gandhi, “Young India”, 2ndJuly 1925.
[2]. Pakrasi Susmita ,“Here’s list of states that have declared journalists as frontline workers” 4th May 2021 ,Hindustan Times, also available at www.hindustantimes.com .
[3]. Diganth Raj Sehgal, “Famous cases of media trials in India”, iPleaders, March 10, 2021 also available at www.blog.iplaeaders.in .
[4]. Nimisha Jha, “Constitutional Validity of Media Trials In India”, November 13,2015 , Lawctopus, also available at www.lawctopus.com.
[5]. Urvashi Singh, “Trial by Media a threat to administration of justice”, Lexology, Singh & Associates, also available at www.lexology.com.
[6]. Harijai Singh & antr. v/s Vijay Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 73.
[7]. Lt. Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2016, Criminal Application No. 1448 of 2016.
[8]. Maria Monika Susairaj vs State Of Gujarat, C.R. No. 347/2008, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1337 of 2008.
[9]. Rhea Chakraborty v/s State of Bihar and Ors. , Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 225/2020.
[10]. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v/s Union of India, 26 September 2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012.
[11]. K.M. Nanavati v/s State of Maharashtra, 1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567.
[13]. Conversation of Justice Katju and Professor Faizan Mustafa, also available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSyZtmlBLrE.
[14]. Santosh Kumar Singh v/s State Th. CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2007.
[15]. Manu Sharma v/s State of Delhi, Criminal Appeal 179 of 2007.
[16]. State v/s Vikas Yadav & Vishal Yadav, S.C. No. 78/2002.