In India, the media, often termed the fourth pillar of democracy, is a key player in framing public opinion, facilitating transparency, and holding institutions accountable. However, with media trials – the process where the media attempt to run a parallel investigation on social media while announcing the verdict themselves on cases pending in court – there are concerns for public confidence in the administration of justice. Media trials are characterized by immense publicity, which often precedes pre-judging people guilty or innocent, and creates a public opinion, sometimes interfering with a court.
These media trials originate out of the desire to produce sensationalist content, combined with having popular contests that try to earn the best viewer share (using Television Rating Points, TRP) and they undermine the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The conflict that arises for independence and impartiality for the judiciary, between freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to a fair trial raises the tension and dialectical relationship between freedom of the press and judicial independence and impartiality. The present article outlines the possible manifold effects of media trials on criminal justice in India, while situating it in the historical context, discussing a legal framework, the impact of media trials and their regulatory context, using the case law and superior courts, reflecting on the precarious balance between the integrity of the judiciary and freedom of the press.
Evolution of Media Trials in India
Media trials are concept not new to India but has risen to prominence with the introduction of 24-hour news channels and social media. The term “trial by media” appeared in the late 20th century at the time of the high-profile case involving K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra in 1959 when the media coverage of a naval officer murderer trial shifted public opinion and affected the eventual jury verdict. The case revolved around the Navy commander Nanavati, who killed a man he believed was having an extramarital affair with his wife. The media created a sensational trial that shaped public opinion and exemplified the power of media to shape narratives and influence outcomes. Importantly, the uptake of electronic media in the 1990s and the rise of social media in the 2000s helped propagate the trend of news as media consumption processes which prevents deliberative thought. Most of the high profile cases involving the media’s role as both a vehicle for justice and perpetrator of prejudice incudled the Jessica Lal murder (1999), Priyadarshini Mattoo (2006), and Aarushi Talwar murder (2008).
In scenarios such as Jessica Lal, the media pressure brought adjustments to those cases ensuring justice, Ultimately, accountability was placed upon the investigations. In the case of Aarushi Talwar, although once again media attention forced judicial rulings, in this case, all dignity was stripped from the accused prior to the case judgement. In the digital age, the scope of media trials has intensified seemingly out of control; social media further accelerated any faulty narratives without proper accountability and often with full public submission to a “kangaroo court” of judgement.
The Role of Media in Shaping Public Opinion
The media’s capacity to influence public perception is at the heart of its ability to influence the administration of justice. By selectively reporting about a legal case, using attention-grabbing headlines, and utilizing dramatized storytelling, media agencies can build a public view of guilt or innocence, that is almost inescapable. This framing has the potential to highlight certain aspects of a case while minimising others, influencing this way people will interpret events when making their own judgements about the case. For example, in the Sushant Singh Rajput suicide case (2020), media outlets relentlessly covered the case, portraying actress Rhea Chakraborty as guilty based on no judicial accountability, and creating character assassination, outrage, and a plea for vengeance.
Such coverage often conveys emotions solely in terms of TRPs, rather than have regard for the ethical principles of journalism. Consequently, readers of this coverage may form opinions informed by the media and, when the media’s narratives press their views, may create social pressure on the judiciary to carry out its responsibilities in tandem with public sentiment, eroding the public notion of presumption of innocence. The role of social media serves to amplify this scenario whereby hashtags, memes and viral posts create information and opinion silos that often reinforce prejudicial understandings of legal situations. The Bombay High Court, in its decision associated with the Sushant Singh Rajput case (2021), suggested that media trials are a hindrance to investigations undermining the public’s trust of the judiciary’s competence in upholding justice. As such, this collection of work serves to illustrate the ways in which media could serve as a source of legitimate education or, at the same time, be manipulative in shaping opinions about society.
Impact on the Right to a Fair Trial
The right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is a fundamental principle one can say the basic foundation of the criminal justice system where an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Media trials can interfere with the right to a fair trial because they create prejudicial situations. Excessive publicity affects judges, witnesses, and the public. It has the possibility of compromising impartiality.
The 2006, Law Commission report (2006) identified that prejudicial press publications when it made, in particular, comments relating to the accused’s character, can adversely impact a fair trial. In the Aarushi Talwar case, the media convicted the victim’s parents before they were tried, which impacted the perception of the public, and judicial outcomes. Likewise, in the 2013 Air India case of urinating on a passenger, the Supreme Court expressed its disapproval of TRP rating journalism which attacked the accused dignity and denied their right to a fair trial. Witnesses are also compromised when they are published in the media. They risk intimidation or coercion, evidenced in the number of statements retracted by witnesses because the media reported their identities. Although the judiciary is independent in the Constitution and the presiding officers in the courts are normally independent from the media, they are not necessarily unaffected by the exposure, especially when judges can build up forms of preconceived assumptions when put under pressure like the media, and violate the principles of natural justice.
Contempt of Court and Legal Frameworks
Media trials frequently border on contempt of court, which the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines as an act that scandalizes the judiciary, prejudices judicial proceedings and/or interferes with the administration of justice. Under Section 2(c) of the Act, “any publication which does or attempts to do so” will be considered criminal contempt. The Supreme Court highlighted the problem of media conducting its own investigations during ongoing trials as “mischievous” and it interferes with the administration of justice in Saibal Kumar Gupta v. B.K. Sen (1961). Similarly, in Sushil Sharma v. The State (1996) the Delhi High Court held that any convictions must rely on evidence and not media reports. The Bombay High Court had issued guidelines regarding media coverage of the Sushant Singh Rajput case in 2021 that sought to address and manage the excessive involvement of the media by instructing the media to respect the privacy of the deceased, but also not to publish any sensitive evidential material including statements if made before police, and not to publish or conduct interviews regarding any subject during any ongoing proceedings.
The limitation of the Act is that it only deals with ongoing proceedings and does not necessarily effectively manage prejudicial media reports before proceedings commence and thus, the Law Commission report raised calls for amendments. The Press Council of India (PCI) was set up in order to serve as a regulatory structure for print media. The PCI does have norms which urge accuracy and equity, but these norms are not binding and continue to have no authority over social and electronic media. While the Cable Television Networks Act, 1995, and the News Broadcasting Standards Authority do serve as forms of oversight, their implementation is weak, and the media trial remains intact.
Societal and Psychological Consequences
Outside of the courtroom, media trials can have far-reaching and profound consequences on lives, society, and the psychological states of individuals. The media can create a public perception of guilt that can cause social ostracism, mental anguish, and harm the reputation of the accused, even where the accused is ultimately acquitted. Several paper submissions relied on the Puttaswamy (2017) judgement to establish that the right to privacy is a fundamental right against the State, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to privacy, the media trial is a flagrant violation of the right to privacy especially, by exposing private details in media reports.
Rhea Chakraborty endured continuous scrutiny and vilification by the media that affected her mental health, personal life and the dynamics in which she would socially experience her environment. The family members of the accused are also harassed personally and socially too, such as in the Aarushi Talwar case, where the accused parents were vilified and publicly condemned. Media trials can feed into vigilantism, violation of the law and justice, where victim sentiment, driven by sensational and irresponsible reporting leans towards calling for extrajudicial methods of punishment. The Supreme Court in the matter of Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) condemned vigilantism, stating only the judiciary can provide justice. Further, the media trial has the power to polarize society or social discourse, resulting in two simplistic narratives of victims and villains; this also harms trust in society and institutions. The very legitimacy of the judiciary can be undermined, where public narratives portray system failure; the media narrative in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks undermined the legitimacy of the courts over time when legal proceedings were imposed before any judicial orders.
Landmark Cases Illustrating Media Trials
Many high-profile cases illustrate the duality of media trials as both a means of justice and a force of bias. In the Jessica Lal murder case (1999), the media created the pressure that led to affording the accused new scrutiny. The death of Priyadarshini Mattoo (2006) and the rape of Bijal Joshi (2005) followed similar media channels to success, with various levels of public compassion for shameful prejudices against the victims. The Aarushi Talwar murder (2008) had the media’s negativity thrust upon it, making the parent guilty features without proof and made them outlaws rather than a respectful attention to the problem of privilege and the behaviour of established standards. The killing of Sushant Singh Rajput (2020) placed media houses at odd angles, conducting their investigations in a manner that interfered with the proper use of police investigation channels and ethical practices. Their public writing on investigation considerations led to issued judicial administration of orders by the Bombay High Court some months later. Finally, there is the Nanavati case (1959), which had entries influencing jurors with an intense media storm, ultimately leading to opportunism, dismissal of jury features in India, and general disbelief about older court precedence. Each of these entries invites records of how the media features and supports justice practices that do not extend into judicial practice beyond normative standards.
Judicial Responses and Guidelines
The judiciary has responded to media trials with the aim of protecting justice. In 2020, the Bombay High Court issued thorough guidelines in Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India on the responsibilities of the media, ordering that it avoid sensational reporting, respect the right to privacy, and did not interfere with the course of investigations. In 2013, the Supreme Court ordered the Union Home Ministry to develop a Standard Operating Procedures (SoP) for police press conferences on the basis that police should not make statements prejudicial to the individuals referred to by the FIR. Former Chief Justice N.V. Ramana criticized the media for functioning as “kangaroo courts” in 2021. Noting that it undermines democracy, he said, “There is no cause that is more dangerous than this.” The Courts have made it clear that contempt liability distinguishes the point of publication at the time of filing the FIR with respect to all publications made thereafter. In In re P.C. Sen (1968), the Supreme Court held that any publication that avert otherwise qualifies as contempt of court will be found to obstruct judicial proceedings… This constitutes contempt, even from afar, and therefore acceptable and enforceable ground for giving effect to the courts authority and right to act. All of these things are intended to limit the media through self-control and to uphold its freedoms, but the challenge remains to enforce controls it has established, especially when the evolution of digital media is so rapid.
Balancing Freedom of the Press and Judicial Integrity
The intersection of freedom of the press with one’s right to a fair trial is of particular relevance with respect to the media trial issue. Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom of speech and expression, including the freedom of the press or media, while Article 19(2) provides for reasonable restrictions in the interest of justice. The courts have reiterated that freedom of the press is not unfettered and should not interfere in court processes. The Bombay High Court’s ruling in Vyanka Chaturvedi v. The State of Maharashtra and others (2021), was an effort to find the balance, by refusing to impose a gag order on the press despite calls for it, while encouraging the press to maintain ethical journalism. As previously mentioned, if a formal and complete regulation of the media is adhered to, it could result in a police press which is not in the spirit of democracy in line with the iPleaders blog, which concluded; Appeal to self-regulation, enforcement of existing laws including the Press Council rules, create media literacy. Norms of the Press Council encouraging accuracy and fairness are non-binding, but do illustrate some standardisation and qualification despite challenges of enforcement against electronic media. The studies like the UK’s strict contempt of court laws causing a chilling effect, demonstrate potential further avenues for India to provide for stricter pre-trial restraint without limiting press freedom.
Challenges in Regulating Media Trials
Regulating media trials is difficult because the diversity and rapid development of the media landscape makes it multifaceted. The Press Council of India is limited in its effectiveness because it doesn’t have responsibility for electronic media or social media. The Cable Television Networks Act, 1995 and organisations like the News Broadcasting Standards Authority take little enforcement on profession or industry standards so we continue to see sensationalism from TRPs. Moreover, the regulation of social media is beyond the existing law altogether and misinformation can spread like wildfire on such platforms, as identified in the case of Sushant Singh Rajput for instance, where various campaigns went viral and prejudiced the investigatory process. While the Law Commission of India has suggested amending the Contempt of Courts Act to include pre-trial coverage, no law has been passed and we still do not have adequate regulation early in the process. Finally, there exists challenges of enforcement of contempt of court laws by the judiciary without intervening against press freedom; if too many interventions occur, there exists a risk that public trust in the judiciary itself may be eroded. Furthermore, once digital content becomes widely disseminated it becomes even more more difficult for timely interventions to have any effect, often requiring interveners to be proactive rather than reactive.
Potential Solutions:
Tackling the consequences of media trials requires a multi-faceted approach that strikes a balance between press freedoms and judicial integrity.
- Strengthening Legal Frameworks: Amending the Contempt of Courts Act to include pre-trial coverage similar to recommendations made by the Law Commission would help in restricting prejudicial media coverage.
- Enhancing Self-Regulation: Media houses and channels should implement ethical codes that are enforceable, regardless of the industry standards that prioritize TRPs rather than accuracy and fairness. Industry bodies such as the News Broadcasters Federation can strengthen compliance to reduce prejudicial reports.
- Media Literacy Programs: Creating media literacy initiatives on the workings of the legal system and issues surrounding the sensationalism of justice can help reduce any vulnerability to biased narratives.
- Judicial Training: Judges should be regularly trained in remaining unaffected by public opinion and pressure, and following strict codes on making evidence-based conclusions.
- Technology-driven Oversight: Technology such as AI tools could monitor media output for evidence of prejudicial reporting enabling a quick intervention.
- Internationally applicable best practices: Policies similar to those in the UK Contempt of Courts Act, 1981 governing severe restrictions on media coverage of a trial pre-trial, would provide a road map for necessary reform.
Finally, there should be an incentivized approach to create an environment of collaboration between the judiciary, media, and policymakers to keep the responsibility of reporting without compromising any democratic values.
Conclusion
Media trials in India are not without a silver lining, as they can fast-track justice in the Jessica Lal case, but also undermine fair trials in the Aarushi Talwar case. However, they have enormous implications for the justice administration process, affecting fair trial rights, judicial independence, and citizen confidence in institutions. When they prejudge the accused, influence witnesses, and pressure judges, they violate constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 and 21.
Although statutes such as the Contempt of Courts Act and the guidelines provide inconvenience, both enforcement and the increasing presence of social media do not constitute a complete answer to the problem. The judiciary has acted preemptively and this is illustrated by its Exodus and to be proactive, as demonstrated in the case of *Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India* (2016) 7 SCC 221, which called for ethical journalism and lawful regulation, while the decision against N. M. Hegde enabled journalists and media. We recommend a balanced approach based on self-regulation, the enabling of the media, calling on law enforcement modified the laws and better legal literacy among citizens. The nature of democracy and its changing character will require, media, to continue to be a watchdog but, never a public court, to ensure that justice is not dispensed from newsrooms, but only administered in court.
About Author
Omkar A Galatagekar, a student of Reva University, Bangalore , is currently pursuing a BBA LLB 5th year. Omkar’s area of interest lies in corporate law, especially in the legal dynamics of mergers and acquisitions. His article explores the legal implications and regulatory frameworks that govern corporate restructuring, while also examining the interplay between global market practices and Indian corporate laws. Through this research, Omkar aims to highlight the strategic and legal intricacies involved in contemporary corporate transactions