Media Trials: The Indian Way

“When you turn courtroom into a studio, you have to turn reality into story, with good guys, bad guys, and drama.”

- Anonymous

The demi-world of journalism is like the funhouse of mirrors that one finds in carnivals. If the eye of the accuser deems you as the culprit, then you probably are. The difference is, however, that unlike the funhouse of mirrors, the distortions of the media are rarely a joke.

With the case of Sheena Bohra murder, the excruciating eyes of the media have pierced the personal life of the main accused Indrani Mukherjea which has kicked in a fresh debate on the issue of a media trial of the accused. Every aspect of her personal life and character which have nothing to do legally with the investigation of the murder are under the public lens of scrutiny via the media. The ethics of journalism have been again in a controversial area due to their prying eyes on the accused.

---

DEFINING MEDIA

Media is regarded as one of the four pillars of democracy. It plays a vital role in moulding the opinion of the society and it is capable of changing the whole viewpoint through which people perceive various events. The media can be commended for starting a trend where the media plays an active role in bringing the accused to the hook. Especially in the last two decades, the advent of cable television, local radio networks and the internet has greatly enhanced the reach and impact of the mass media. The circulation of newspapers and magazines in English as well as the various vernacular languages have also been continuously growing in our country. This ever-expanding readership and viewership coupled with the use of modern technologies for newsgathering have given media organizations an unprecedented role in shaping popular opinions. However, media freedom also entails a certain degree of responsibility.

The strength and importance of media in a democracy is well recognized. Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution, which gives freedom of speech and expression includes within its ambit, freedom of the press. The existence of a free, independent and powerful media is the cornerstone of a democracy, especially of a highly mixed society like India. Media is not only a medium to express one’s feelings, opinions and views, but it is also responsible and instrumental for building opinions and views on various topics of regional, national and international agenda. The pivotal role of the media is its ability to mobilize the thinking process of millions. The increased role of the media in today’s globalized and tech-savvy world was aptly put in the words of Justice Learned Hand of the United States Supreme Court when he said, “The hand that rules the press, the radio, the screen and the far-spread magazine, rules the country”

This power to influence an entire country, when misused, yields grave results.

The freedom of the media, like any other freedom recognized under the Constitution, has to be exercised within reasonable boundaries. With great power comes great responsibility. Similarly, the freedom under Article 19(1) (a) is correlative with the duty not to violate any law.

In an increasingly competitive market for grabbing the attention of viewers and readers, media reports often turn to distortion of facts and sensationalisation. The problem finds its worst manifestation when the media extensively covers sub judice matters by publishing information and opinions that are clearly prejudicial to the interests of the parties involved in litigation pending before the Courts.

---

MEDIA TRIALS

Most recently, the death of Indian actor Sushant Singh Rajput has garnered similar media coverage, leading once again to a conflict with the fundamental human right to privacy.

Over the last few months, the majority of news channels in India have conducted parallel investigations into the actor’s death in the form of an unrestrained “media trial.”

The media published details, such as his medical history, bank account details, including transactions, and numerous private texts, photographs and videos of various other people regardless of its relevance to the investigation. This has resulted in the violation of privacy and defies the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty.”

2 PROTOTYPES OF MEDIA TRIALS

There have been two transformations in the nature of such media trials over the last decade that needs attention. The first is the manner in which social media aided and widened the mainstream media narrative. It was a phenomenon that was very apparent in the SSR coverage, as #SSRian groups proliferated across social media platforms.

1st prototype

An early prototype of this model was the 2006 protests over the acquittal of Jessica Lal’s killer, when NDTV anchored an SMS campaign demanding “Justice for Jessica”, and invited its viewers to text in their outrage. A similar pattern played out when Priyadarshini Mattoo’s rapist and killer had also been acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence. In both instances, the respective media trials did ensure the reversal of verdicts and the conviction of the guilty. But the question that emerged even at that point was whether media-inspired justice delivery could result in serious errors. There was also a realisation that the process, by its very nature, was patchy and episodic, what one young scholar, Ritesh Mehta, termed as “flash activism” which is by definition is “not organisational but temporal in scope”.

2nd prototype

The second prototype can be traced back to the Arushi Talwar case. The media not only drew flak in the reporting of the murder of Aarushi Talwar, when it preempted the court and reported that her own father Dr Rajesh Talwar, and possibly her mother Nupur Talwar were involved in her murder, the CBI later declared that Rajesh was not the killer but also destroyed any sort of evidence that could have led to the reveal of the killer by hounding the crime scene.

Another recent manifestation of this prototype can be traced to the SSR ‘murder’ case where the media allegedly convinced people that Sushant was murdered by his ex-girlfriend Rhea Chakroborty. She has been vilified, slut-shamed, accused of murdering him, drugging him, and stealing his money. Her family was/is being harassed by TV reporters who are parked outside her building all day and night. Even a food delivery boy was chased away (apparently, hummus is also being slut-shamed). In fact, every evening Arnab Goswami came to the panel like a vengeful ex and accused Rhea of every crime possible.

Clearly, this can’t be right. Media channels aren’t courthouses. And I am sorry to break it to you but news anchors aren’t judges. While they may demand justice as they did in Jessica Lal’s murder case. They can’t shun a person entirely and hound them 24 hours* 7 like they did in SSR’s case.

This leads us to our next question, IS MEDIA TRIAL A CONTEMPT OF COURT?

Trial by Media is Contempt of Court and needs to be punished. The Contempt of Court Act defines contempt by identifying it as civil and criminal].

Criminal contempt has further been divided into three types:

1. Scandalizing

2. Prejudicing trial, and

3. Hindering the administration of justice.

No publication, which is calculated to poison the minds of jurors, intimidate witnesses or parties or to create an atmosphere in which the administration of justice would be difficult or impossible, amounts to contempt. Commenting on the pending cases or abuse of the party may amount to contempt only when a case is triable by a judge. No editor has the right to assume the role of an investigator to try to prejudice the court against any person. So yes, media trials are contempt of court and in my opinion, should be kept in check.

However, I can spurn the fact that media trials, given a proper context, are necessary. We have a rich tradition of fiercely independent journalism. In fact, most of the big scams were busted by the press. The law enforcers merely followed them up. A Positive by-product of changes spurred by the media and addressed by the Courts is that more Indians are aware of their constitutional rights than ever before. A major constraint on stings and trials by media is the public interest. If public interest is missing and self or manipulative interests surface, the media loses its ground and invites the wrath of the court, making it a necessary evil.

Regulation of these trials at the most basic level is necessary. The most suitable way to regulate the media will be to exercise the contempt jurisdiction of the court to punish those who violate the basic code of conduct. The media cannot be allowed freedom of speech and expression to an extent as to prejudice the trial itself. This actually calls for the existence of a responsible media. No freedom, however sacred it may be, can be absolute. This is also true of press freedom. Not only the freedom of the press is subject to the laws of the land, such as contempt and libel, but also is responsible for the society it serves. It should accept certain responsibilities in the discharge of its function.

The credibility of news media rests on unbiased, objective reporting. It is in the media’s interest to ensure that the administration of justice is not undermined.