MEDIA PROSECUTIONS AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT PENDING CASES AFFECTING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Author: Rituparna Basu, Techno India University

INTRODUCTION

The world of Media has undergone a massive transformation in the 21st Century, particularly in the shift of communications from traditional forms of Media such as Newspapers and Television, to a more modern approach that includes social media. In a democracy, free media is seen as an essential. “Freedom of Speech and Expression” is granted through a number of procedures, but as previously said there are certain reasonable restrictions that are placed in this right. In order to preserve social order in a democratic society it is also essential to impose limitations on such freedoms. There are various explanations for why news agencies have sacrificed their journalistic ethics and morals that are immensely harmful to our nation. This is a particular time in history when media trials and current legal proceedings started overlapping with each other, invoking important concerns regarding the authenticity of our judicial system. The public discourse surrounding some legal cases presents a paradoxical situation: achieving public engagements while ensuring the equity of the trial process. These questions are fundamental to establishing how justice is achieved through media intervention, and other interrelated components of the justice system. Modern society finds itself in a very delicate and controversial web where media trials, public statements and justice system scrutiny all work hand-in-hand.

THE CONCEPT OF MEDIA PROSECUTION

The term “Media Trial” or “Trial by Media” or also known as media prosecution originated in the United States in the 19th Century and it was introduced to the India Court system in the well known or rather notorious case – K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra.

The concept of media prosecution refers to the trial of a case in the public sphere, mainly in the media rather than in the court of law where it should first be held as a fair trial. This phenomenon occurs when journalists on news channels, commentators and social media pages dissect legal proceedings, influencing the public opinion before the court has even declared its verdict. Public Commentary and debates in news channels on cases that are under trial can affect the fairness of trials, public trust in the judiciary and the democratic principles of due process and the consideration of a person to be innocent until proven guilty.

CONCEPT OF MEDIA PROSECUTION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH

One may argue that freedom of speech is the mother of all rights as it is essential to the development of public opinion on social, political and economic issues and the people who are in power should have the authority of keeping the public informed about certain policies and projects. As stated in the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. V. CTO the Supreme Court reaffirmed that while press freedom is not explicitly a fundamental right, it is inherent in freedom of speech and expression. As a vital pillar of democracy, the press is often called the fourth estate.

However, freedom of speech isn’t absolute. In order to safeguard rights including privacy, reputation and contempt of court it is subject to restrictions specified in Article 19(2). Despite this, the right to freedom of speech is seen as a foundation of other rights and plays a crucial role in influencing public opinion. In the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Justice Venkataramiah emphasized the significance of press freedom in promoting public education in developing the nation. Yet the press can be held accountable under libel or slander for infringing individual privacy in the name of freedom of speech. The press cannot conduct parallel trials while the court proceedings are ongoing since this would be considered as a contempt of court.

IMPACT ON THE SOCIETY

People especially of our society are influenced by what they hear and see, which in turn influences more by what the media presents to them or what other people have produced on these platforms. In a country like ours, where every person has their own derived judgements, media prosecutions and public commentaries add to it.

The way that cases are framed by the media can affect how the general public views the person involved and the judicial system. Public belief in the legal system may be permanently impacted by how court hearings are portrayed in the media. While bad representation might encourage skepticism and mistrust, positive media coverage might increase the confidence in the court’s decision. Social movements are sparked by high-profile media trial cases that excite public opinion on topics like racial discrimination, gender violence, and holding powerful people accountable.

Media prosecutions paint the accused as criminal even before a thorough investigation is conducted only on the basis of rumors. Both his right to privacy and his right to a fair trial are flagrantly violated.

IMPACT ON AN INDIVIDUAL AND MEDIA VICTIMIZATION

The PCI (Press Council of India) standards provide criteria for reporting certain delicate cases and avoiding media trials. The PCI urges the media not to give victims, witnesses, suspects and accused too much publicity since this constitutes an invasion of privacy5.

The media has now reborn itself as a “public court”, popularly known as the “Janta Adalat” and has begun meddling with the court processes to the point that it now announces its own decisions before the court. It utterly ignores the critical distinction between an accused and a convict, putting at risk the golden rule of ‘assumption of innocence until proven guilty’ and ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’. In the process of media prosecution the reputation of the suspect is ruined even before the court declares its verdict. The victim’s and their families' mental suffering worsens as a result of the continuing court cases and the continuing media of the same issue. Traumatic scenarios may also arise as a result of such an environment for the accused as well as the victim.

JUDICIAL OVERVIEW ON MEDIA PROSECUTIONS

Judges are vulnerable to being swayed by the prevailing discourse around a certain case, according to Hon’ble Justice D.M Dharmadhikari, Chairman of the M.P. Human Rights Commission. The public is presented with the case by the media in such a way that a judge who issues an order on that particular case deviates from the “media verdict” is perceived as either biased or corrupted. It is the responsibility of the Judges to render unbiased judgements based on the law and the evidence presented to the court. But this process can be made more difficult by the pressure of the public opinion, which is fueled by media attention. Judges may feel pressured to think about how the public would respond to their decisions, which might comprise both their independence and the fairness of the legal system. The danger of biased statements in media affecting judges or witnesses is brought to light in situations such as in the case Re: P.C Sen. The legal system is vulnerable because judges are fallible human beings who can be swayed by careless speeches.

Justice AS Oka recently emphasized in a webinar that Media Trials and Public Comments surrounding any ongoing criminal case can significantly compromise the integrity of the Justice System by creating undue pressure on judges. He cited a recent instance involving a rape and murder case where the Chief Minister of West Bengal publicly stated that the accused would face death penalty whereas the investigation was still ongoing. These kinds of commentaries can unduly influence judicial officers.

A relevant example can be drawn from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, where the court reiterated the importance of freedom of speech and the need to balance it against the right to a fair trial. The judgement acknowledges the potential harm that public commentaries may pose to the integrity of judicial proceedings, to ensure justice and keep a clear boundary between media narrative and court proceedings.

The historic public litigation case known as Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India was the first time a court established criteria for how media outlets and networks should broadcast judicial processes. The court issued various regulations:

The victim’s privacy and dignity should always be maintained.
The sensitive information on the case should never be made public.
The confessions or admissions made in front of an investigation officer cannot be published.
When a case is sub-judice, interviews with anybody involved in it may be prohibited.

In the case of M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court harshly criticized the media for interfering with the administration of justice by publishing one-sided stories about the merits of cases pending in the court.

CONCLUSION

It is essential that the roles of the media and the judiciary remain distinct from each other, allowing each to operate independently while fostering a transparent society. The judiciary’s role is to provide justice while the media’s role is to provide information. A clear understanding of these responsibilities could prevent the occurrence of media prosecution in future. Because of this constant interrogation by the media there are numerous individuals who choose to withhold the truth or seek justice. Certain Witnesses who play a crucial role in judicial proceedings, frequently hesitate to come forward due to the prevalent media coverage surrounding the case. By ensuring these two entities do not overlap with each other we can protect the integrity of pending trials and uphold the principle of Justice.

REFERENCES

Isha Tyagi and Nivedita Grover (Media Trials And The Rights Of The Accused, January 16, 2015) https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/media-trials-and-the-rights-of-the-accused/, 7th April 2025.
Monalisha Sethi (Justice AS Oka: “Media Trials & Public Commentary on Pending Cases Undermine Justice System”, 2 February 2025) https://lawchakra.in/legal-updates/justice-as-oka-media-trials/, 8th April, 2025

CASES