Posts By : admin

Media Trials
June 12, 2021 no comments in Corporate by

Media Trials in India: And Know the Rights of Accused

Privacy is a value that is associated with human dignity and other key values such as freedom to associate and freedom of speech. It should not be presumed that the desire for privacy means that a person is hiding something.

Privacy is a basic human right that leads to a reasonable expectation of a person with respect to the fact that his means of communication and communication networks are safe and private, the breach of which will not only lead to a breach of his basic human right but also impair the pedestal on which the legal structure subsists. The Indian Constitution regulates and empowers the freedom of speech under Article 19.

However, it also provides restriction which may be imposed by the State if such a restriction is against public order or morality. Similarly, Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the “Right to Life and Liberty” which includes the right to be left alone and not to the centre of a media frenzy.

India, at present, does not have an independent statute that protects privacy; the right to privacy is a deemed a right under the Constitution. The right to privacy has to be understood in the context of two fundamental rights: the right to freedom under Article 19 and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Trial by media is a phrase used to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a Court of law. In the United Kingdom, there is a heated debate between those who support a free press which is largely uncensored and those who place a higher priority on an individual’s right to privacy and right to a fair trial.

Although a recently coined phrase, the idea that popular media can have a strong influence on the legal process goes way back certainly to the advent of the printing press and probably much further. This is not including the use of a State-controlled press to criminalize political opponents, but in its commonly understood meaning, it covers all occasions where the reputation of a person has been drastically affected by ostensible non-political publications.

Trial by Media & Media Victimization

The Press Council of India norms lay down the guidelines for reporting cases and avoiding trial by media. The PCI warns journalists not to give excessive public attention to victims, witnesses, suspects and accused such that it amounts to an invasion of privacy.

Similarly, the public identification of witnesses may endanger their lives of witnesses and force them to turn hostile. Zaheera Sheikh, who was a key witness in the Gujarat Best Bakery case, was a victim of excessive media coverage and sympathy. Her turning hostile invited an equal amount of media speculation as wrath.

Her excessive media exposure possibly put her life in danger. Instead of focusing on the lack of a witness protection program in the country, the media focused on the twists and turns of the case and the 19-year-old’s conflicting statements. The right of the suspect or the accused to privacy is recognized by the PCI to guard against trial by media.

In cases of rape when facts are part of the judgment, you report facts that are relevant to the judgment or give you an insight on why the Court took a certain view and add value to the copy. One should avoid a situation where the facts revealed are offensive or reveal the identity of the victim in question. The past histories of both the victim and the accused should not be in the report.”

Media reporting ends up giving the impression that the accused has committed the crime or the media has independently carried out an investigation and has found a particular fact. When in fact, it has relied entirely on the information given by the police and failed to question or verify the facts by an independent source. The result is that most crime reporting is done in a one-sided manner because the information received from the police is rarely questioned.”

Section 3(1) of the Act exempts any publication and distribution of the publication, “if the publisher had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was still pending”. In the event, the person is unaware of the pendency, any publication (whether by words spoken or written or signs or visible representations) interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs “the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at the time of publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.” The report emphasizes that publications during the pre-trial stage by the media could affect the rights enjoyed by the accused. An evaluation of the accused’s character is likely to affect or prejudice a fair trial by having a subconscious effect.

If the suspect’s pictures are shown in the media, identification parades of the accused conducted under the Code of Civil Procedure would be prejudiced. Under the Contempt of Court Act, publications that interfere with the administration of justice amount to contempt. Further, the principles of natural justice emphasize fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The rights of an accused are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. This protects the accused from the over-zealous media glare which can prejudice the case. Although, in recent times the media has failed to observe restraint in covering high-profile murder cases, much of which has been hailed as the media’s success in ensuring justice to the common man.

Media has now reincarnated itself into a ‘public Court’ which can also be referred to as “Janta Adalat” and has started interfering in Court proceedings so much so that it pronounces its own verdict even before the Court does. It completely overlooks the vital gap between an accused and a convict keeping at stake the golden principles of an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and the guilt being beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Apex Court observed that the freedom of speech has to be carefully and cautiously used to avoid interference in the process of administration of justice. If trial by media hampers fair investigation and prejudices the right of defence of the accused, it would amount to a travesty of justice. The Court remarked that the media should not act as an agent of the Court. Such an affiliation is not warranted and is misleading. The Court, commented, “Presumption of innocence of an accused is a presumption made by the law and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is still underway.”

 

Right to Equality
June 10, 2021 1 comment in High Court by

What is Right to Equality? With Article 14 Explained

Every citizen of India is guaranteed the right to be treated equally under Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution. Article 14 encapsulates the general standards of equality. The idea of equality does not talk about outright equality among individuals which is practically unrealistic to achieve. It is an idea implying the absence of any extraordinary benefit by reason of birth or the like for any individual.

As Dr Jennings puts it: “Equality before the law implies that among equivalents the law ought to be equivalent and ought to be similarly applied, that ought to be dealt with in a like manner. The privilege to sue and be sued, to prosecute and be prosecuted for a similar sort of activity ought to be the same for all residents of full age and comprehension without refinements of race, religion, wealth, societal position or political impact.”

Equality Before Law

This implies that no man is authorized to stray from the rules that everyone else follows and that each individual, whatever be his position in society or conditions, is subject to the purview of the ordinary jurisdiction. Professor Dicey provided three meanings of the Rule of Law:

  • Supremacy of the Law:

This provision means that under no circumstances can the use of power exercised arbitrarily overshadow the supremacy of the law. To put it differently, it is also said that a person can be punished for nothing other than a breach of law.

  • Equality Before the Law:

It implies all classes are subjected to the ordinary rule administered by ordinary law courts and that everyone must follow.

Right to Equality Under Article 14

According to Article 14, it is a compulsion to the State not to deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India. The concept of ‘equality before the law’ is taken from the English Constitution and the concept of ‘equal protection of laws’ is borrowed from the American Constitution. Both these articulations aim at setting up what is designated “equality of status” in the Preamble of the Constitution. While both the articulations may appear to be impossible to tell apart, they don’t generally pass on a similar significance. While ‘equality before the law’ is, to some degree a negative idea suggesting the lack of any special benefit for people and the equal subject of all classes to the conventional law. “Equal protection of the law” is an increasingly positive idea inferring equality of treatment in equal conditions. Notwithstanding the aforementioned things, one overwhelming thought regular to both the articulations is that of providing justice.

Exceptions to the Rule of Law

The rule of equality given in the Constitution of India is not a standard rule without any exceptions. There are a number of special exceptions to it: Firstly, ‘equality before the law’ isn’t implying that the powers that are given to the public authorities will be the same as the powers given to the private citizens of the nation. To explain this better, we know that, a cop has the ability to arrest while, generally, no private individual possesses this power. This isn’t an infringement of the rule of law. In any case, the rule of law requires that these forces ought to be unmistakably characterized by the law and the maltreatment of power by public officials must be punished by common courts in a similar way as unlawful acts committed by private people.

Underlying Principle

Equality before the law or equal protection of the laws does not mean a similar treatment to everybody. As no two individuals are equal in all regards, a similar treatment of them in each regard would bring about unequal treatment to them. For instance, similar treatment in all regards to a young person and a grown-up, or to a debilitated or physically impaired individual as to a person free of any health problems, or to an affluent individual as to a poor person, will bring about unequal treatment or treatment which no one will legitimize or endorse.

As a result, the basic standard of equality isn’t the uniformity of treatment to all things considered equal, but instead to give them similar treatment in those regards where they are comparable and different treatment in those areas in which they are not alike. Basically, it is expressed: Equals are to be dealt with in a similar manner while unequal must be dealt with in a different way. For the real-life application of the principle of equality, all things considered, we should, consequently, discriminate between the individuals who are equivalent and the individuals who are not similar.

Despite the fact that no two individuals are comparable in all regards, they are for the most part comparative in one regard, in particular, they are generally human beings. In this manner, as people require a similar treatment, they should all be treated as people. In the Ancient Indian setting, as much as in Christianity and Islam, regardless of whether we are created from various pieces of the body of that first individual or God, we are for the most part God’s children. It is in this aspect that we are all deemed as equals.

Under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the meaning of equality is not just limited to prohibiting unequal treatment but also requires equal treatment. A prerequisite obligation for the state is to treat people unequally but in addition to that the state must also come up with steps to eliminate the existing inequalities in the system especially the inequalities which demarcate human beings.

The varying needs of various classes of people regularly require to be given separate treatment. From the very idea of society, there ought to be various laws in place and the Legislature controls the strategy and orders laws to the greatest advantage of the wellbeing and security of the State.