Supreme Court on Media Trial in India

Coauthor: Anand Sen | Pranjal Sharma

Introduction

Media Trial in India

Media is one of the most important pillars of democracy. It has extensively ranging roles in society. It plays an extremely vital role in moulding the opinion of society and it is highly efficient in changing the whole perspective through which people look at various events. Pertaining to its power the media has started a trend where it plays an active role in bringing the accused to hook.

Some famous criminal cases that would have gone unpunished without the intervention of media are Priyadarshini Mattoo case, Jessica Lal case, Nitish Katara murder case and Bijal Joshi rape case, however, there have been many cases when media drew criticism for its false journalism, like in the reporting of the murder of Aarushi Talwar, when it pre-empted the court and reported that her own father Dr Rajesh Talwar, and possibly her mother Nupur Talwar were involved in her murder which further hampered the investigation and caused an erroneous effect on the judgment. This is one of many tragic incidents that have occurred out of verdicts that have been passed off a ‘Media trial. Such trials tend to make a person guilty without even having any substantive evidence against him/her that could have proven them guilty.

When the law of any country states that a person is innocent until proven guilty then why and how can a person’s fate be decided by mere means of media? This leaves us with the question of the role of media in highlighting the victim’s allegations on TV without bothering to cross-check facts or even get the accused version of the incident. Such gross damages that are caused by media thereby furthermore increasing the importance of keeping it under checks and balances.

What is Media Trial?

The creation of baseless perceptions in a case, through means of media like the Newspaper, the Television, Radio, Instagram or Facebook, that directly impacts the reputation of the person regardless of any verdict given in a court of law is called a social media trial. There is no legality in a Trial by Media. Trial by Media is Contempt of Court and needs to be Punished. Journalists, however, describe it as ‘investigative journalism’, which is totally legal in the country. In simple words, Media Trial can be described as a prediction of innocence or guilt of a person even before the court of law announces its verdict. During any high-publicity court cases, the media is often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria that makes a fair trial nearly impossible to achieve. At times, even when the accused is proven innocent it is impossible for him/her to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.

Media Trial Cases

Parties have a constitutional right to have a fair trial in the court of law, by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by newspaper dictation or popular Glamour. What would happen to this right if the press may use such a language as to influence and control the judicial process?

Trial by Media creates a huge impact in the court of law 

• Aarushi Talwar Murder case[1]: In 2008, a girl named Aarushi Talwar (aged about 13 years) and Hemraj Banjade, her male live-in domestic worker employed by her parents, aged 45 years, was found dead on the night of 15-16 May at Aarushi’s home in Noida, India. The case aroused public interest as a whodunit story (i.e. a story or play about a murder in which the identity of the murderer is not revealed until the end) and received heavy media coverage. The media covered this sensational case with indecent allegations against Aarushi and other suspects. This act of Media was heavily criticized by many people as a trial by media did not only distorted the reputation of the deceased but also interfered in the ongoing investigation of the police. (Recent Media Trial Cases in India)
• Priyadarshani Mattoo case[2]: On 23^rd January 1996, a 25 years old law student named Priyadarshani was found raped and murdered at her house in New Delhi. In 2006, the High Court of Delhi found, Santosh Kumar Singh s/o IPS officer guilty on both, rape and murder and in the same year, he was sentenced to death. Later, in 2010, the judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court and the court reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment. The issue of Trial by Media is was raised, and whether excessive media coverage has influenced the verdict will remain an unanswered question.
• Jessica Lal Murder case[3]: On 30^th April 1999, a model in New Delhi was working as a celebrity barmaid at a crowded socialite party and around 2 am she was shot dead. The manifold of witnesses pointed Manu Sharma s/o Venod Sharma, former minister, as the murderer. Later, Manu Sharma and other culprits were acquitted on 21 February 2006.

According to Ashok Arora, Senior Advocate ‘there is strong circumstantial evidence to convict the accused and questioned the Jessica Lal murder case acquittal, claiming it was not based on merit’.[4] Thereafter, intense pressure from public and media and appeal from prosecution compelled the High Court of Delhi to conduct proceedings on a fast track with daily hearings conducted over 25 days. The trial court judgment was then overturned, and Manu Sharma was found guilty of having murdered Lal. The accused, Manu Sharma was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 December 2006. Recently, the accused was released from Tihar Jail by Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on grounds of good behaviour.

In this case, the media had played a vital role in highlighting this case. It was the media glare that helped Jessica get justice.  

• Jasleen Kaur’s case: In 2015, Jasleen Kaur, a woman from Delhi, posted the photo of, Sarvjeet Singh, on Facebook, accusing him of sexual harassment. The post then went viral which eventually followed by a trial by media, that labelled the man with terms like ‘the predator of Delhi’ and ‘pervert’. Four years later, the Delhi Court declared him innocent and acquitted him of all the charges. But, during this time, he lost his job and he couldn’t find any other source of income as a result of the trial by media. This case is the most recent example of the Media Trial. (Recent Media Trial Cases in India)

SUPREME COURT ON MEDIA TRIAL

• Romila Thapar & Ors. v/s Union of India & Ors.[5]

Facts: In this case, a petition is filed against the action of the Police in raiding the homes and arresting five human rights activists, journalists, advocates, and political workers, to suppress independent voices differing in ideology from the party in power and the honest voice of dissent. They complained that the five activists were arrested from their homes without any source of credible material and evidence against them justifying their arrest, purportedly in connection with FIR.

Held:

• The Court can’t determine the course of the investigation but it can act as the watchdog to ensure a fair and impartial investigation takes place.
• Disclosing of purported details of the investigation to the media and television channels raised a basic question as to whether the Maharashtra police can now be trusted to carry out an independent and impartial investigation
• The Court ordered a Special Investigation Team to be appointed and the investigation was monitored by the court. The Special Investigating Team then submitted a  periodical status reports to the Court, every month.

Court’s view on Trial by Media:

• Justice D.Y Chandrachud, in his dissenting opinion on the arrest of 5 well-known people, noted that the way police misuse the media, it impacts the reputation of the people involved in the case. He then stated that “The use of the electronic media by the investigating arm of the State to influence public opinion during the pendency of an investigation subverts the fairness of the investigation. The police are not adjudicators nor do they pronounce upon guilt. In the present case, police briefings to the media have become a source of manipulating public opinion by besmirching the reputations of individuals involved in the process of investigation. What follows is, unfortunately, a trial by the media.” 

• Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration and Ors,[6]

FACTS

1. Sushil Sharma was facing murder trial of Naina Sahni before the Additional Sessions Judge.
2. He has felt aggrieved because according to him the news items appearing in the Press and the electronic media are in such a fashion that it has not only coloured the public opinion but also arouse public passions against him.
3. the senior police officials by their utterances published in the Press have prejudged his case thereby holding him guilty and Additional Commissioner of Police Maxwell Pereira has gone on record to say that he was possessed of sufficient material to hang the petitioner.
4. The petitioner contended that because of these statements by the officials of the Investigating Agency he can not expect a fair trial.

COURTS VIEW

The court held that postponement or suspension of trial, is neither sustainable in law nor on facts. There is in fact no right vested in the petitioner to get the session trial once started postponed. The court held that if petitioner was not expecting fair trial he could have got the case transferred. The court also suggested that he could have asked the Trial Court to hold the session case in camera. But no such request was made by him. The court also held that not a single instance has been pointed out by the petitioner when because of these news items he has been prejudiced. The hon’ble high court stated that ‘Freedom of speech should not be limited to any greater extent than is necessary, ……The path of criticism is a public way. That right puts greater responsibility upon those who take up the responsibility to inform.’ The court stated that in case of excessive publicity of Court proceedings, the proceedings can be held in camera in order to avoid the same.

There was little evidence that the accused had murdered his partner. However, while the case was still pending in the court, the media had started portraying the accused as a murderer and was capable of changing the views of the public even before the decision of the case. It held by the High Court of Delhi that the conviction of any person would solely be based on the facts of the case and not because the media wanted the person to be declared as guilty. The charges also have to be framed against the person accused based on the evidence available on record and not based on what the media portrays the person to be.

• Y.V. Hanumantha Rao vs. K.R. Pattabhiram and Ors.[7]

FACTS

The current case arises out of application before court requesting to punish the respondents for contempt.

1. Due to the agitation the arose from the demand of a separate Andhra State, a curfew was imposed in the Town of Vijayawada from 6-1-1973 to 10-1-1973 and later on from 21-1-1973 to 24-1-1973 at specified hours.
2. Hanumanth Rao contended that the imposition of curfew was without the authority of law and without following the procedure of law and had led to disastrous consequences.
3. While the writ petition was pending, the 2nd respondent, contributed an article to, the 1st respondent’s paper. This article was entitled “the law of curfew”. In that article the 2nd respondent discussed what is meant by curfew and what is the legal authority behind imposing an order of curfew. He then refers to the origin of the word ‘curfew’ and makes references to its historical background. Considering Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the author then makes reference to various provisions of law.
4. The petition, it is alleged that the said article amounts to contempt of Court and therefore the respondents should be punished.

COURTS VIEW

The court states that the law on contempt holds that when litigation is pending before a Court, no one shall comment on it in such a way there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the action,

The Hon’ble court holds that the article makes no reference either expressly or even by necessary implication to the pending case in the Court. It does not likewise make any reference either to the parties to the litigation or to the question referred to in the writ petition. Therefore, the article cannot be characterised as calculated to bring a court or a Judge into contempt or it amounts to interfering with the course of justice

The court also states that they try to preserve the rights of the parties or the witnesses appearing therein from being attacked till the disposal of the pending case, but they are not so sensitive as to even consider academic writings as interfering with the administration of justice.

• Nipun Saxena vs Union of India Ministry of Home[8]

FACTS OF THE CASE

The current case focused on How and in what manner the identity of adult victims of rape and children who are victims of sexual abuse should be protected so that they are not subjected to unnecessary ridicule.

COURTS DECISION

The judgment was divided into two parts, The first part dealt with the victims of the offence of rape under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the second part deals with victims who are subjected to offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In the current Judgment’s reference to “media” will include all types of media including press, electronic and social media etc.

The court in the case held that, any person, who publishes any matter in relation to the proceedings before a Court with respect to offences under  Sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or 376E, without the permission of the Court, commits an offence and prohibits the disclosure of identity of the victim of offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 376E

The second part of the judgment dealt with the POCSO Act. The court held that the 1^st  Part of the judgment dealing with the adult victims, apply with even greater force to minor victims. It recognized that a minor who is subjected to sexual abuse needs to be protected even more than a major victim.

Under Section 33 of POCSO, it is the duty of the Special Court to ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed at any time during the course of investigation or trial. Section 23 of POCSO contains provisions which relate to procedure for media. The court also referred to the Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which puts a prohibition on disclosure of identity of children

• The people of the state of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson

FACTS OF THE CASE

• On the night of 13 June 1994, a man discovered a blood-stained dog in an agitated state on Bundy drive, West Los Angeles, an affluent suburb of the city.
• The dog led the man to 875 South Bundy, once the marital home of ex-American footballer Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson, and then occupied by Nicole and their two young children
• The bodies of two Caucasian adults, one male, one female, were lying on the walkway to the house.
• The female victim was Simpson’s ex-wife, 35-year-old Nicole, murdered as she returned home from dinner; the male, 25-year-old Ronald Goldman, was a waiter at the restaurant where Nicole had spent the evening.
• Both victims had been multiply stabbed in a brutal attack and left for dead outside the westside condominium, while the Simpson’s two young children slept upstairs.
• It was alleged that Simpson had carried out the double homicide. He therefore was formally charged with two counts of first-degree murder, a capital offence under California law, on the evening of 17 June 1994.

COURTS DECISION
On October 3, 1995, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The jury arrived at the verdict by 3 p.m. on 2^nd of October, after only four hours of deliberation, but the judge postponed the announcement. Before the verdict, President Bill Clinton was briefed on security measures if rioting occurred nationwide due to the verdict.

It was held as one of the most publicized cases in the 20th century. An estimated 100 million people worldwide stopped what they were doing to watch or listen to the verdict announcement. During the judgment, so much work stopped that the verdict cost an estimated $480 million in lost productivity.

In the present case, the media were more than mere storytellers. They became story-makers. They first broadcasted that the Simpson story as a tale of celebrity and the fall of a ‘great man’. Then they continued to reinvent the story as a tale of domestic violence, wealth, status, and, finally, race. Whether such stories actually were tied to the real case was largely irrelevant. It’s also true that this trial invited the American population right into the courtroom with the proceedings televised by “Court TV” and other news outlets.

Court’s view on Trial by Media

State of Maharashtra v/s Rajendra jawanmal Gandhi [9]

The Court agreed with the High Court that great harm had been caused to the girl by unnecessary publicity and taking out morcha (rallies) by the public. Even the case had to be transferred from Kolhapur to Satara under the orders of this Court. There is a procedure established by the law governing the conduct of the trial of a person accused of an offence. A trial by press, electronic media, or public agitation is very antithesis of the rule of law. It can well lead to a miscarriage of justice. A judge has to guard himself against any such pressure and he is to be guided strictly by rules of law. If he finds the person guilty of an offence, he is then to address himself to the question of sentence to be awarded to him under the provisions of law. While imposing a sentence of fine and directing payment of the whole or certain portion of it to the person aggrieved, the court has also to go into the question of damage caused to the victim and even to her family. The crime is not only against the victim it is against the whole society as well. Since late, there has been a spurt in crimes relating to sexual offences.

Conclusion

Though media acts as a watchdog and is a platform to bring people’s voice to the notice of society and legislatures but nowadays media is over-sensationalized to increase their TRP’s. Media should not abuse the right of freedom and expression of speech by interfering in the ongoing trial be it any high-profile case. According to Fali Nariman, “A responsible media is the handmaiden of effective judicial administration”.[10] A fair and robust reporting, criticism and debate are very much necessary for the public to understand the rule of law.

---

[1] 2013 (82) ACC 303

[2] Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State, (2010)9SCC747

[3] Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1

[4] http://m.timesofindia.com/articleshow/1789919.cms

[5] (2018) 10 SCC 753.

[6] Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration and Ors, 1996 CriLJ 3944

[7] Y.V. Hanumantha Rao vs. K.R. Pattabhiram and Ors. MANU/AP/0070/1975

[8] MANU/SCOR/36031/2017

[10] State of Maharashtra v/s Rajendra jawanmal Gandhi., (1997) 8 SCC 386

[9] Nariman, Fali S., Are Impediments to Free Expression in the Interest of Justice, CIJL Yearbook, Vol 4, 1995.