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.”