Context
Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) of India ordered the Union Home Affairs Ministry to develop a thorough Standard operation Procedure within three months on the subject matter of press conferences given by police officials in criminal cases.
- Objective of SC’s Order: This was done to prevent the dismay faced by the person who are put in the dock of Media Trail on the basis of statements given by these officials.
- This was done because the manner in which high-profile matters like the Sushant Singh and Aryan Khan cases are being publicised in recent times has spawned a new debate between “free speech and expression” and the “right to a fair trial“.
- Impact of Proliferation of Media Trials: It is undermining one of the core concepts of criminal jurisprudence i.e. the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty”.
Enroll now for UPSC Online Course
- Genesis of Media Trial: The notion “Media Trial” or “Trial by Media” got its name in the United States of America during the period of 19th Century and became familiar with the Indian legal system in the famous, or rather, infamous case of “K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra”.
- It is not a legal term that is defined in any statute or any legal glossary.
- Definition of Media Trial: Many legal luminaries have time to time tried to give a definition to this concept. However, the most apt one came from the pen of R. Surette who described this in words:
- Media trials are defined as certain regional or national news ‘events’ in which the criminal justice system is co-opted by the media as a source of high drama and entertainment.”
- Major Problem: In our country, it was briefly specified by the Supreme Court as an informal trial where there is a “perception of being guilty” and whose verdict would only injure the chance of fair proceedings and tamper the accused’s right to get a just and impartial trial.
- It contains the ability to declare any innocent as guilty, or/and vice versa, in the eyes of the general public.
- Rights of Media Personnel: There is no disagreement on the fact that the media personnel have a legal as well as constitutional right to cover the events that are happening in courts and disseminate that same to their audience.
- Positive Impact: This will boost the trust of the public in the proceedings.
- Parallel Trials: However, this absolute freedom sometimes develops in a parallel criminal trial of the suspects in the news studios.
- To counter it, this issue was raised before the Supreme Court in “R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court” and the Apex Court, for the very first time, noted that a concurrent trial by the media has no legal standing in our judicial system as it creates a conflict between the right to “free speech and expression” and the “right to a fair trial“.
- However, in a later ruling, the Delhi High Court clarified that if both of these rights came into conflict, then the former would be given primacy over the other viewing the larger public interest
- Press Freedom: Prior to this, considering that unfettered freedom of speech and expression would be equivalent to providing unrestricted permission, the Apex Court in “Re.: Harijai Singh” has voiced that press freedom is neither total nor infinite. If it were left entirely unrestricted, even somewhat, it would cause calamity and turmoil.
- Fundamental Right: In another significant ruling titled “R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu”, the Supreme Court clarified that Article 19(1) ensures freedom of speech and expression, which also covers the right to freedom of the press.
- But this privilege is subject to reasonable constraints as Article 19(2) expressly lists decency and defamation as two of the grounds to curtail the rights of the media.
- Reporting Legal Proceedings: The renowned Public Interest Litigation case known by the name of “Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India” was the first occasion when any court established standards on how media publications and networks should report legal proceedings.
- Fundamental Directives: The Court issued several norms which include the following fundamental directives:
- The privacy and dignity of the victim must always be respected;
- The sensitive information related to the case should never be made public.
- The confession/admission made in front of an investigator cannot published;
- The interviews of anyone who is connected to the case may not be undertaken when the matter is sub-judice.
- It stated some other observations at the conclusion of the judgment such as the press must deliver news stories in their genuine and accurate form.
- It must include the account of the events as it was honestly recorded, without exaggeration or bias, and any form of distortion.
- The incidence should not be overemphasised for the sake of gaining more and more viewers.
Recommendations
- Guideline: The guidelines given by the 17th Law Commission in its 200th Report titled “Trial by Media: Free Speech and Fair Trial under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973” must be strictly adhered to.
- Statutes: Important statutes such as “Prasar Bharti Act, 1990“, and the “Cable Networks Act, 1995“, must be updated so that their stipulations do not remain a mere formality in this digital era.
- Compulsory Regulations: The “Press Council of India” and the “News Broadcasting Standards Authority” should make their regulations compulsory rather than making it discretionary.
- Media As Watchdog: In a democracy, the press acts as a watchdog to make sure that every trial is done truthfully, openly, and thoroughly.
- Nevertheless, this watchdog frequently forgets its pious duty and diverts from the path. Sometimes, it itself becomes the judge and runs a kangaroo court to convict a suspect.
- To control this, it is imperative that the press refrain from abusing its freedom and undermining the core principles of criminal law.
Conclusion
Press must understand that the freedom is a duty that requires the truth, and only truth, to be shared with the people. Through this way only, the media would perform its original duty towards the nation.
Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes
May 29, 2024
