This Article is written by Advika Dwivedi, a Fourth-year law student of Christ Academy Institute of Law

Introduction:

The fourth pillar of democracy, Media has always played an influential role in the Indian Society. From reporting national issues to page six gossip, the media have not only made the public aware of all the highlights in the world. However, our first Prime Minister did not foresighted the repercussions of such freedom. Historically, media reporting combined with sensitization impacts the legal process substantially. Often referred to as Trial by Media, the term describes a situation where the media coverage of a case, provides an outcome before any judicial pronouncement. This article throws light on the impact of media coverage on courtroom trials.

The Concept of Trail by Media

"Trial by media" refers to cases in which the media, by extensive coverage, influences public perception and, perhaps, the outcome of existing court processes. Rather than allowing the judicial system to operate within the law, media coverage of high-profile cases frequently has an impact on public opinion in ways that undermine the fairness of the legal process.

The problem with media trials is that they can foster a culture of bias or prior judgment, which influences not just public opinion but also the judges. In such cases, judges, jurors, or witnesses struggle to remain impartial in the face of intense media attention, especially if the media provides false or biased information. The constitutional right to a fair trial is put under threat by such media coverage.

Role of Media in a Democratic Society

According to the Supreme Court of India, "freedom of the press" has its foundation on people's right to be informed. The Supreme Court stated, “The primary function, therefore, of the press is to provide comprehensive and objective information on all aspects of the country’s political, social, economic, and cultural life. It has an educative and mobilizing role to play. It plays an important role in molding public opinion.”[1] The "freedom of the press" advances the "right to know" by providing public access to various sources of information. It educates the public about a variety of topics, allowing them to make informed social decisions. Investigative journalism is based on two essential principles: first, the subject matter must be of public interest, and second, efforts should be made to conceal the truth from the public. [2]The media has an important role in encouraging transparency in a democratic society. The media allows people to share their views on issues of public interest.

Right to Fair Trail

According to Articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to a fair trial is an essential component of India's legal system. This right provides persons with the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty in a public trial with all required defense safeguards. The Supreme Court has ruled that a fair trial requires independent judges, a public hearing, the assumption of innocence, and access to counsel.

The media has been accused of violating this principle, sparking a conflict between free press and fair trial. The right of the people to participate in current issues gives rise to press freedom, but the right to a fair trial is an absolute right for all individuals within India's territorial boundaries. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which can only be limited by law in the interests of India's sovereignty and integrity, state security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.

In the case of Jessica Lal's murder case[3], the Supreme Court stressed the necessity of ensuring that media trials do not impede the fair inquiry by the investigating agency and do not jeopardize the accused's right to a defense. The Judiciary is empowered to issue a pre-broadcasting injunction order in case no other alternative measure reduces the risk.

Media Coverage and Its Effect on Public Opinion

Shaping Narratives by presenting coverage of certain aspects of the case is a characteristic of the media. Journalists and Media Organizations project a particular image of the victim or accused because of a "media frenzy distorting facts or supply selective information.

For example, media outlets may stress specific aspects of a case to heighten its drama while disregarding other vital details. This selective reporting can create prejudice in the public's mind, making it impossible for jurors or judges to reach an unbiased verdict based solely on the evidence given in court. In extreme cases, media coverage can effectively "convict" or "acquit" a person in front of the public before the court rules.

Furthermore, social media provides an additional layer of effect. Narratives about trials can spread quickly, escaping typical media examination. Public personalities, influencers, and ordinary citizens can all speak out on topics, increasing the impact of media coverage and making it even more difficult to manipulate public opinion. A Study by the Indian Media Research Institute (IMRI) provided an analysis of 50 high-profile cases which revealed that 72% of media coverage emphasized sensational elements over factual accuracy. The same study found that 45% of media reports included speculative information not supported by courtroom evidence.

Justice A.R Joshi in Salman Khan's Hit and Run Case observed, “The Court is expected to be impervious to the pressure from the public and from the media. For good reasons, the law of evidence has no place for the public opinion as a factor that should weigh with the Court while deciding a case at hand. Probably because such opinion or such perception is often gathered based on the information/news constantly being told/broadcasted by the Media and other institutions. It often happens that a proposition that is repeatedly fed to the public can achieve the status of truth. This is as far as the public at large is concerned. However, this so-called 'truth' i.e. the proposition is required to be proved before a Court of law and in which the established principles of the law of evidence are required to be followed.” [4]

Impact on the Judiciary

Judges are greatly influenced by media trials, which focus on American and Anglo-Saxon ideas. The American viewpoint maintains that jurors and judges are unlikely to be influenced by media outlets; nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon approach contends that judges may be subconsciously influenced.[5] Lord Denning, a well-known jurist, stated in the Court of Appeal that media coverage does not guide judges, but the House of Lords rejected this argument. According to Justice Frankfurter, the judiciary would be unable to function effectively if the press interfered with the judge's responsibilities and ability to act solely on the evidence given in court.[6]

The Indian Supreme Court has also adopted Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence after reviewing some English instances. The New South Wales Law Commission [7] The Canadian Law Commission considers that, while judges may be usually immune to influence, the risk of such influence cannot be eliminated.[8] A study undertaken by Walden University's Dr. V.V.L.N. Sastry found that public media can impact judges' perceptions of a case under trial, with 430 out of 450 advocates agreeing and 12 disagreeing. A survey performed in the U.K. in 2010 indicated that recollection of media coverage in high-profile cases was 70%, with 89% of jurors remembering the defendant as guilty and 20% admitting that it was difficult for them to put these reports out of their minds.[9]

The Judiciary of India, under the guidance of the Supreme Court, has acknowledged the potential influence of media on judges. The court has emphasized that judges are human beings and the judicial system's fragility can be tainted by irresponsible expression. However, the court has denied the influence of media on judges, stating that they do not get influenced by propaganda or adverse publicity. [10] The judiciary has expressed concern about the impact of media on pending trials, highlighting the need for restraint in media trials.

Conclusion

Media coverage is crucial for promoting legal transparency and keeping people and institutions accountable. However, excessive, or biased media coverage may hurt the fairness of court proceedings. The term "trial by media" has the potential to damage the legal process's integrity, affect public opinion, and put undue pressure on judges. Finding a balance between the public's right to know and the accused's right to a fair trial is crucial for ensuring justice is served. Responsible journalism, legal safeguards, and judicial independence must all collaborate to protect the courtroom from undue media influence.

References

1. Win CHI, Impact of sensationalized media coverage and perception on current events in Myanmar, 7 International Journal of Sociology 1–12 (2023).

2. The role of the media in the construction of public belief and Social Change: Journal of Social and Political Psychology, The Role of the Media in the Construction of Public Belief and Social Change| Journal of Social and Political Psychology, https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/4761/4761.html (last visited Sep 13, 2024).

3. Manupatra, Manupatra Articles, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Media-Trials-Misuse-of-Freedom-of-Speech-and-Deterrent-in-the-path-of-Justice (last visited Sep 13, 2024).

4. Impact of media trial on judiciary, https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2308298.pdf (last visited Sep 13, 2024).

5. (PDF) trial by media -a threat to our judicial system? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346624036_Trial_By_Media_-A_Threat_to_Our_Judicial_System (last visited Sep 13, 2024).

[1] In Re: Harijai Singh and Anr.; In Re: Vijay Kumar, (1996) 6 SCC 466

[2] Zehra Khan, "Trial-by-Media: Derailing the Judicial Process in India", 1 MLR (2010), p. 94

[3] (2010) 6 SCC 1

[4] Salman Salim Khan vs. State of Maharashtra Cr. Appeal No. 572 of 2015

[5] 200th Law Commission of India Report, ‘Trial by Media: Free Speech Vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure’, Ministry of Law and Justice - Law Commission of India (amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971) 46 (2006),

http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/rep200.pdf

[6] John D. Pennekamp vs. State of Florida (1946) 328 US 331

[7] New South Wales Law Commission, in its Discussion Paper (2000) (No.43) on ‘Contempt

by Publication’

[8] K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police AIR (2004) SC 524

[9] Cheryl Thomas, ‘Are juries fair?’, Ministry of Justice Research Series (2010), https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf

[10] Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 2778.