This article has been written by Ms. Indrakshi Chaku, an upcoming law student
Introduction
The freedom of press is an essential part of any healthy functioning democracy. By allowing a healthy exchange of ideas and by holding the three pillars of democracy, namely: legislature, executive and judiciary, accountable, it contributes to strengthening of the system of checks and balances. Although the constitution of India does not explicitly state the right to freedom of press, Dr. Ambedkar, in his constituent assemble debates made it clear that no such special mention was necessary because as far the article 19 (1) (a), the right to freedom of speech and expression was concerned, media and individuals were accorded to be the same. However, the extent of this freedom has always been a matter of controversy in the judicial world. One of the manifestations of this controversy is the heated debate surrounding media trial or the trial by media. It refers to the impact of free press on creating a perception of an individual’s guilt or innocence before the declaration of the original verdict, likely influencing the same. In recent years, the trials by media have received heavy criticism for infringing upon the process of conducting a free trial, violating the fundamental rights of the accused and misusing the constitutionally guaranteed freedom provided to media. In addition to this, media trials have also been accused to influence the outcome of trials and warp the impartiality of judges.
Media trial vs Fair trial
India follows an adversarial legal system wherein the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and the defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The judge acts as a neutral party and announces the verdict based on the facts presented by the prosecution and defense. Since the role of judges in this form of legal system is so limited, yet so imperative, it is extremely important that the trials are conducted without any prejudice for or against any of the parties or the cause in question. In the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors 8 March, 2006, fair trial was defined as “a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated”. Although the Supreme court of India states that there can be no exhaustive, all- encompassing definition of a fair trial, the existence of the following principles is necessary for considering a trial to be fair:
- Presumption of innocence: The fundamental presumption of innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt forms the backbone of Indian criminal law. The statement was further validated in the case of State of U.P. vs Naresh and Ors on 8th march, 2011 where it was held that the presumption of innocence is a human right which forms the basis of Indian criminal jurisprudence. Upholding the fundamental presumption of innocence, The Indian constitution further guarantees various rights to the accused irrespective of the gravity of the offence. Sections 330 and 331 of IPC provide for the protection of accused from any unnecessary harassment in the custody before he/she has been convicted. Furthermore, section 26 of the Indian evidence act prohibits the admission of confession made by the accused in police custody in the court. Additionally, the constitutionally guaranteed article 14 (equality before law) and article 21(right to life and personal liberty) can’t be taken away even from an accused except in certain situations and according to the due procedure of law.
- Independence of Judiciary and Impartiality of judges: Independence of Judiciary refers to the power of courts to make decisions without any interference from the other organs of the government. As further elaborated in the case of S.P Gupta v Union of India, 1982, independence of judiciary refers to the power of judges to be fearless and uphold the rule of law. Furthermore, Article 129 and 215 of the Indian constitution respectively empower the supreme court and the high court of India to punish anyone for its contempt. Additionally, the constitution also guarantees security of tenure to the judges of high court and the supreme court and derives their allowances from the consolidated fund of India to end their dependence on the executive or legislative wing of the government. In the case of Himanshu Singh Sabharwal vs state of M.P. And Ors , 12th march, 2008, it was held that the obvious basis for a fair trial would be an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm, a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. Attributing to the principle that no one should be a judge in his/her own case, Indian judicial system provides for the doctrine of Judicial recusal enabling the judges to recuse themselves from cases where a conflict of interest exists and it may impair their impartiality.
Media trial is accused to have interfered with these fundamental principles. The heavy publicizing of the parties of a case by media births a pre conceived notion about the outcome of the case and the reputation of the accused, which violates the presumption of innocence. The fear of going against the publicly decided verdict may force the judges to go with the public opinion, violating the principle of impartiality. In addition to this, the media coverage can also cause external complications. For e.g.: the long-standing Ayodhya dispute was tried several times by media before the final verdict could be reached, emboldening the supporters of involved parties and causing unnecessary violence.
Media Trials Vs Rights of the accused
The constitution of India guarantees certain rights to the accused, which are violated by the interference of media. The right to privacy guaranteed under article 21 is breached by the probing conduct of media. Media trials have also caused the wrongful portrayal of the accused, impeding his/her fundamental rights. For e.g.: in Jasleen Kaur Vs Sarvjeet Singh,2015 the wrongful conviction of the accused was overturned by the Delhi High Court 4 years later. However, the media harassment faced by the accused during the course of 4 years severely impacted his personal life and career, depriving him of his right to livelihood (Article 21). Media trials have also known to interfere with the article 39A of Indian constitution, which provides for legal aid to those who can’t afford it. For instance, in the Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra, 21st march,2013 the lawyers defending the accused were heavily criticized by the media which made it difficult for them to fulfil their ethical duty of providing legal aid to the parties.
Are media trials all evil?
Although media trials have received heavy criticism from various folks over the years, it is imperative to shed light on the cases where media trials have helped in the delivery of justice. For e.g., in Radhika (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P,2019 (the Nirbhaya rape case) an extensive coverage by both international and national media, led to protests against the central and the state government for failure to provide security to women. The outrage caused the 2015 amendment in the Juvenile Justice act wherein juveniles between the ages of 16-18 accused of heinous crimes were to be tried like adults. The case of Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Th. Cbi, 2010 was also positively influenced by media’s coverage of the case. The acquittal of the accused was overturned attributing to a strong media campaign and a sustained public outrage. On 30 October 2006, the previously acquitted person was ordered a death sentence by the Delhi High court, which was later converted into life imprisonment by the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
Media is considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy. In the absence of free media, a country cannot have a healthy functioning democracy. Over the years, media has given a voice to voiceless and strengthened democracy through discussion and debate. However, excessive involvement of media in trials has caused critics to believe that media trials have led to breach of rule of law, impartiality of judges, independence of judiciary, presumption of innocence and other principles which are at the core of due procedure of law. At the same time, media has also influenced certain verdicts in a positive way and helped in the delivery of justice. Thus, it can be concluded that the legal implications of media trials are two sides of the same coin. While we must recognize and appreciate the freedom of speech and expression endowed upon media, the rules of conduct for media must also be duly regulated to avoid any unjust outcomes of trials.
References:
http://legalhistorysources.com/Canon%20Law/PresumptionInnocence.htm
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening