What are Media Trials?

Media trials refer to the phenomenon where media outlets,

particularly news channels and newspapers, intensely cover a legal
case, often adopting the role of investigator, prosecutor and judge.
This extensive coverage tends to create a public perception of the
guilt or innocence of the accused even before the judiciary has
delivered its verdict.
In a media trial, the lines between reporting facts and
sensationalising stories often blur. The media’s portrayal can shape
public opinion, leading to prejudiced views and potentially
influencing the legal process. This can result in undue pressure on
the judiciary, where judges may feel compelled to consider public
sentiment influenced by media narratives.
Media trials can undermine the fundamental principle of a fair trial,
enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees
the right to life and personal liberty. They can jeopardise the
presumption of innocence, where an individual is considered
innocent until proven guilty and can lead to character assassination
and social ostracism based on unverified information.
While the media serves as an essential pillar of democracy by
ensuring transparency and accountability, it must exercise its
freedom responsibly. Ethical journalism, adherence to legal
guidelines and respect for the judicial process are important to
prevent media trials from compromising justice.
This can have several impacts:
1. Public Opinion and Prejudice: Media trials can shape public
opinion, leading to a prejudiced view of the accused, which can
influence the jury (in jurisdictions where jury trials exist) or
even the judges.
2. Judicial Pressure: Judges might face indirect pressure from
the media and public opinion, potentially impacting their
impartiality.
3. Right to a Fair Trial: Media trials can undermine the right to
a fair trial, a fundamental aspect of justice enshrined in Article
21 of the Indian Constitution.
Historical Context of Media Trials in India
Media trials are not a new occurrence in India. They have been part
of the country’s media landscape for decades, with prominent cases
such as the Nanavati case in the 1950s, where the media played a
substantial role in shaping public opinion. The advent of 24-hour
news channels and social media has amplified this trend, making it a
constant feature in high-profile cases.
The Role of Media in a Democratic Society
The media, often referred to as the fourth estate, plays a crucial role
in a democratic society. It acts as a watchdog, holding the powerful
accountable and providing a platform for public discourse. The
freedom of the press is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and
expression. However, this freedom is not absolute and comes with
reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the state, public order, decency or
morality.
Legal Framework Governing Media Trial and
Judiciary
India lacks a specific legal framework directly addressing media
trials. However, several laws and judicial pronouncements indirectly
deal with the issue:
1. Contempt of Court Act, 1971: This Act defines and limits
the powers of certain courts in punishing contempts of court.
Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt, which includes any act
that scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to
lower the authority of any court.
2. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: Sections 499 and 500
deal with defamation, which can be invoked against
irresponsible reporting.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC), 1973: Section 327
deals with the right to open courts, but in certain cases, courts
can restrict media access to ensure a fair trial.
The Essence of Judiciary
The judiciary’s primary objective is to conduct fair trials and deliver
justice without external influences. This independence is important
for maintaining public trust in the legal system. However, media
trials, which involve the media forming and disseminating opinions
on ongoing legal cases, can create public pressure that potentially
affects judicial impartiality. According to Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971, media trials constitute contempt of
court as they interfere with the judicial process by publishing
opinions on cases that are still under proceedings.
The Impact: Media Trial and Judiciary
Societal Pressure
Media trials generate immense societal pressure, complicating the
task of judges to remain impartial. The portrayal of the accused in
the media can influence public perception and indirectly impact
judicial decisions. This societal pressure may cause judges to form
preconceived notions, making it difficult to conduct an unbiased
trial.
What are media trials

Every now and then, we find some or other discussions, debates and investigations going on in social
or other forms of media.

Generally, trials are run by judicial bodies in order to decide a particular case. In a similar fashion,
when the media, before the judgement of the court, runs such parallel trials in any manner, then
such trials are known as media trials. Herein, the media acts like any investigative agency and covers
the case thoroughly.

In such trials, the media coverage directly portrays the accused as a criminal, which is a complete
violation of the law. Any under-trial prisoner cannot be treated as a criminal until and unless proven
guilty. Media trials take place, especially when any celebrity or other famous public figure is involved.
Other than that, in cases of murder or rape, it takes place very often.

Some famous such cases are the Aarushi Talwar Murder case, wherein her own parents were made
and portrayed as murderers. Later, they were acquitted by the Allahabad High Court. In the Nirbhaya
Rape case, the media made it a public movement but in many of the channels, the victim’s character
was questioned. When such a heinous crime takes place, the media is supposed to act responsibly.
However, such an act by the media should be criticised. Questioning the victim’s character leads to
demotivating other victims from raising their voice against such a crime.

Media trials and society

Society’s perspectives are in some way based on what they watch or listen to; eventually, their
perspectives are based on what media shows them or what has been created by other people on
such platforms. In a country like India, where everyone has their own derived judgements, media
trials add to it.

Even before any proper investigation, just on a prima facie basis, media trials create an image of the
accused as a criminal. It directly violates his right to privacy and a fair chance to gain justice.

In this situation, society begins to criticise and distance itself from both the individual and their
family. Without any kind of investigation or punishment, they live the life of a criminal. Such social
behaviour disturbs the accused as well as his family. It creates an environment of mental distress and
harassment. Not only that but it would even have a psychological impact on the accused and his/her
family, especially if the accused is not guilty.

Effects of media trials

In the Indian Constitution, there is a fair division between freedom and restrictions. However, many
times, the media tends to forget it. Which leads to violations of the provisions and has many
aftereffects.

Ultra-vires right: under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, it gives freedom to express opinion
freely with reasonable restrictions. The reasonable restrictions are imposed in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states,
public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an
offence. Hence, the press’s freedom of speech and expression is not unfettered. One must not forget
that the right is given for opinions and not trials. This is a clear violation of its and others’ rights.
Risk of riots: The impact of media on society is huge and thereby the media has to act responsibly or
else it would create a chaotic, uncontrollable situation. There are many such sensitive situations
wherein media trials would lead to communal violence or regional group violence or may even
accelerate violence. Media trials are often based on primary information, which may even be
misleading to society, especially in such sensitive times.
Effects of media trials on an individual

Media trials can invade one’s privacy and disrupt their peace. It becomes a challenge for an accused
to live in society and continue with his/her normal routine. It may even result in the person’s
unemployment, even if he/she is not guilty.

Reputation: The reputation of the accused gets destroyed in the media trials without any certain
judgement. At times, even the victim’s personal information is publicly exposed on television and in
newspapers. For instance, in the Kathua Gang Rape case, the identity of the minor victim was
disclosed. For which the Court barred the media according to the Prevention of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. This can have adverse effects on the victim’s life.
Mental distress: The ongoing legal trials and constant exposure of the same issue in the media can
exacerbate the mental distress of the victims and their family members. The creation of such an
environment can further lead to traumatic situations. In the urge to get more views or have higher
TRPs, the media gets greedy and does not really care about an individual.
Breach of privacy: According to the Indian Constitution, under Article 21, it is a citizen’s fundamental
right to have the right to privacy, which the media seems not to understand. In the case of Sushant
Singh Rajput, the media intensely covered it and even showed his personal diary to the world. The
media’s role again here was widely criticised.
Media trials and the judiciary
The judiciary is one of the pillars of Indian democracy. The establishment of
the judiciary is meant for the fair and smooth practise of law in the country.
The rights of the citizens are surely protected through the judicial process.
Whether he/she is an accused or victim, both must have a fair chance of
representing themselves before the courts of justice, which has been
enshrined in the Constitution. The judiciary is a completely independent body
and the main motive or objective of having such a body is to have a fair trial
and to deliver justice without any kind of political or social pressure.

Whereas due to media trials, a public opinion is formed, which, on some or

another basis, creates pressure on the judges and might eventually, to a
certain extent, affect the judicial process. According to Section 2(c) of
the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, media trials are directly contempt of courts,
as such media is not allowed by any means to publish or broadcast any such
opinions or views of any case that is still under the proceedings of the court.

This directly means that media trials and judicial trials cannot go hand in
hand.

Impacts of media trials on the judiciary

 Societal pressure: Due to media trials, huge societal pressure is
built on judges, which makes it difficult for a judge to conduct a free
 and fair trial for the accused. This may make it difficult for the
judges to be impartial and not form an image of the accused. Many
times, it may have an influence on the judgements of the court as
an image is already portrayed.
 Lowers the authority of the court: In the case of 26/11 even
before the court announced their judgement, the media declared
that the accused would be awarded the death penalty. Indirectly, it
reduces the importance of the courts and lowers their authority by
connecting the case with emotions and societal pressure. The
judgements of the court have to be in accordance with the law and
its process. Wherein the media trials directly hinder it. Only the
judiciary has the power to decide or declare any kind of punishment
for any accused.
 Disruption to administration of justice:Under the constitution,
even for heinous crimes, the fair process of law has to be followed
and accordingly, the punishment has to be given. Due to the
influence of the media and its coverage of certain cases, there is a
complete disruption in the administration of justice. The media is
just allowed to give relevant updates to the public in a factual
manner but the media does interfere and disturb the process.

The Supreme Court on media

There are multiple cases where the Supreme Court has pointed out media
trials and emphasised the media’s importance of acting responsibly.

Air India Urination case (2023)

In one of the incidents wherein the allegations were made against a man that
he had urinated on an Air India flight. The court clearly showed its concerns
over the news channel for being “TRP-driven”.

The bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna said, “He was called
names. He was denigrated. Everyone has the right to dignity.” Indeed, in the
race to being most popular the news channel forgets the individual’s life and
his/her privacy.

Pradyuman Thakur case (2017)

This case was a perfect example of how a media trial had detrimental effects
on the accused.

Facts of the case: A seven year old boy in Haryana was found dead with
many injuries. In the initial proceedings, his bus conductor was charged with
murder but later found innocent. This case was further transferred to CBI,
where an unnamed sixteen year old student from the same school has since
been charged with his murder.

Media trial effects on the case: the media had declared the bus conductor a
criminal for murdering the student without any kind of judicial trial. Which
resulted in no lawyer being ready to represent the bus conductor. The media
had defamed him in such a manner that he was removed from his job and his
career was badly affected by the same.

Just on the basis of mere speculations in the media, the person had to suffer
a lot. Definitely, things could have been better if the media had acted
responsibly.

Sushant Singh Rajput case (2020)

In this famous case, Rhea Chakraborty, the accused, was constantly followed
by the media and was subjected to character assassination. She was in a
relationship with the actor but was still accused of practising black magic on
him. Constantly, her images and chats were published in the media.

Media trials were run to such an extent that the Bombay High Court held that
a media trial interferes with the administration of justice and could lead to
obstructing the investigation and administration of justice.

Analysis: If the media were to be fully regulated, it would result in the

disappearance of press freedom in the country. There would be a controlled
media system in a country, which can be even more dangerous for us. At the
same time, regulating media trials is equally important. It is really high time
now that the media strictly follow ethical journalism and maintain a certain
level of privacy.

The laws must be made to enforce the Press Council guidelines and other
regulations. The media licencing laws need to be strict now, and strict laws
must be made regarding their suspension and renewal. The laws must draw a
line between freedom of the press and the right to privacy. Both the judiciary
and media can work in their accordance and one does not interfere in other
work. The trials can be reduced only if the media platforms get rid of their
TRP games. Responsible media is a desperate need in India, especially for the
youth of India.

In the case of Saibal Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. B.K. Sen and Anr (1961), it
was held by the Supreme Court that “no doubt it would be mischievous for a
newspaper to systematically conduct an independent investigation into a
crime for which a man has been arrested and to publish the results of that
investigation. This is because trials by newspapers, when a trial by one of the
regular tribunals of the country is going on, must be prevented. The basis for
this view is that such action on the part of a newspaper tends to interfere
with the course of justice, whether the investigation tends to prejudice the
accused or the prosecution. There is no comparison between a trial by a
newspaper and what has happened in this case.”

In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India (2018), the
Supreme Court has also recognised that media trials can infringe upon the
right to privacy of an individual and has cautioned the media against
violating the privacy of individuals involved in legal proceedings.

In the case of Harper Collins Publishers India … vs. Sanchita Gupta @ Shilpi &
Ors. (2020), the Delhi High Court stated that there can be no bar on the
discussion/publication but the moment these discussions are mere
speculations or are baseless imputations, the person has the right to protect
her/his reputation.