INTRODUCTION

Press is essentially referred to as the fourth estate in a democratic setup and is bestowed upon with the function of keeping the citizens informed of the happenings in the state thereby acting as a bridge between the government and the people. However, in order to carry out this function, the rights of the press have to be protected by law against arbitrary action from the government. Legal frameworks have to be made so as to protect the rights of the press in such a manner that it would not be detrimental to the interest of the state. Throughout the world, the press is under threat of oppression not only from the governments but also from various pressure groups such as religious organizations.
Coming to India, press and press rights have a history that dates back to the struggle for independence. The colonial powers were intimidated by the impact of print media on the public and used all measures to muzzle its growth. The leaders that spearheaded the freedom movement post the first war of independence started focusing more on print media, to criticize the government and their policies. In fact, the print media was one of the primary modes by which the struggle was carried on. The role of the press in India’s freedom struggle is quite similar to that of the United States of America, however, unlike the latter press rights were not recognized as a fundamental right in India. Freedom of Press falls under the purview of Article 19(1)a – right to freedom of speech and expression. This means that it shall be limited or restricted by law as per article 19(2).
It was through case laws, press rights were recognized and a framework was drawn. After independence, there have been instances of the government imposing restrictions upon the press that affected press rights very deeply which will be addressed later in the article. In modern times, the commercial reach of the press has substantially increased with the arrival of television news channels which started a race between channels to get maximum viewership. This to an extent has deteriorated the quality of media over time but more importantly, with news channels wanting more content on a daily basis, the scope for entertaining fake news and indulging in press trials has increased exponentially. As of now, there is a vacuum in the legal sphere with respect to media trials and the propagation of fake news. This needs scrutiny and shall be done in the light of judicial decisions in this regard.

FREEDOM OF PRESS IN INDIA

Currently, there are almost 100,000 registered publications in India and numerous cases have been reported where these publications have been censored on account of their content. The problem of not having Freedom of Press as a separate, explicit right recognized under part III of the constitution has brought the press to succumb under the scrutiny of article 19 (2) which lays limitations upon the freedom of speech and expression. Words such as morality and decency create ambiguity and could be taken advantage of by the government to impose their policies upon the press without any bar.
During the 1970s, Indian newspapers depended largely upon advertisements from the government. Without revenues from this head, it was quite difficult for publications to function properly. This was often used as a tool to enforce their whims upon the press by the government. Just before the Emergency of 1975 was declared, the government withdrew support for many publications such as The Indian Express and The Statesman when they refused to abide by the governmental censorship.
At the time of emergency, as expected, there was strict censorship imposed upon the press, and all kinds of media and anything criticizing the government policies were harshly silenced if not met with violence.
After the Indhira Gandhi era, there have been several attempts to curtail press rights through legislation and administrative actions. In 1988, the government introduced the Defamation Bill which placed the entire burden of proof on the accused in defamation suits. There were terms in the Bill which were undefined and vague such as ‘grossly indecent,’ ‘scurrilous, ‘or ‘intended for blackmail’ and this made it easier for political leaders to cook up charges against the publishers. The act sought to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of reporters and newspaper editors. The bill was strongly criticized and as a result, the bill was retracted and never saw light again.

Another point to be seen in the light of the above-mentioned points is the instances of violence against a journalist and the way it has raised over a very short period of time. There were a plethora of instances of violence against journalists at the time of the anti CAA movement in Delhi and other cities. News reporters were denied access to these spots and when questioned they were meted with violence.
Unlike the US, the exclusion of freedom of the press in Part III made it necessary for the judiciary to fill the vacuum. IN Romesh Thappar v Union of India, press rights were recognized as essential freedom for the preservation of democracy. it was held that freedom of speech, expression, and press strengthen the base of any democratic nation. In Indian Express Newspaper v Union of India, it was held by the Supreme court that the freedom of the press is an essential attribute of democracy. It has the following dimensions/scope; right to access information, right to publish, and right to circulation. The Supreme Court has intervened and widened the scope of press rights by recognizing certain specific rights such as; In Sakal Papers v Union of India, the legislation which limited the number of publications that a newspaper could have was struck down. In Bennett Coleman and Co. v Union of India, the government order which limited the page number was struck down on account that it violates article 19(a).

THE ISSUE OF MEDIA TRIALS

Media Trial is when the media takes up the functions of the judiciary wherein they take an issue and sensationalize it by making their own conclusions for the purpose of increasing their commercial reach. Media Trails have been a point of concern for a long time and has been increasing ever since the arrival of television news channels. India, with a huge number of private news channels with national coverage and local coverage, the need to be in the race for viewers is a necessity in order to get funds. Press houses with obvious political affinity reports contents in a manner that would favor their interests. Especially in instances where the matter is subjudice, the popular media can affect public opinion in such a way that it would affect even the judges.
One of the very first instances of media trial was held in the year 1921, the mysterious death of Virgenia Rappe which is considered as the first major scandal in Hollywood. She attended a party in the suite of Hollywood actor- Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle and was found traumatized in one of the rooms with injuries to which she succumbed 4 days later. There were different versions of the incident by different individuals, but the one where the murderer was Arbuckle gained popularity. The incident was sensationalized by the media at that time. Three trials were conducted throughout which the actor suffered character assassination by popular media, his career was ruined. At the end of the third and final trial, Arbuckle was acquitted and the jury admitted that there wasn’t even the slightest evidence to connect him with the murder. This is a classic example of a media trial.
Media Trials and Extensive Media activism have been seen in the US in cases involving celebrities. The conflict between the first amendment rights of the press and the sixth amendment right of the citizen to a fair trial is essentially what happens. In the case where the 19-month-old son of Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbergh was kidnapped and murdered by a German-born carpenter, Bruno Hauptman was arrested. This gained huge media attention and following the trial, Hauptman was convicted and executed. His widow died later still claiming his innocence.
In the 80s, the trial of Claus Von Bulow in the murder case for the killing of her wife gained huge media attention. CNN had extensive coverage of the issue with subsidiary stories and contents based on his lifestyles and characteristics.

Among them, the case that got the biggest media attention was the landmark O J Simpsons case where the former NFL player and actor O J Simpson was accused of the murder of two individuals including his ex-wife. The pursuit, arrest, and trial were broadcasted worldwide and the pursuit itself was watched by 95 million viewers. The national television canceled the broadcast of the NFL tournament to broadcast the trial. It was in fact one of the most broadcasted and viewed trials of all time. The media as well as the people were divided in their opinion with respect to the outcome of the case wherein the accused was acquitted.
One glaring example of a media trial in India was the Jessica Lal murder case which could be referred to as the epitome of media activism in the sense that it had a positive and moral impact on the judiciary. In this case, Jessica Lal, a woman was shot dead by an individual during a party for not serving the drink of his choice. She was shot in the head and died at a spot among the 80 individuals who were present at the scene only a few came up as witnessed. A case was lodged against the culprits, however, the witnesses turned hostile and the accused were discharged. This caused so much media frenzy and attention causing public outcry throughout the country. A petition was filed in the Delhi High Court to look into the matter and the accused were all convicted which clearly was influenced by the public outcry. The Supreme court upheld the High Court Decision and acknowledged that there has been a media trial taken place in that case.
The Supreme Court commented thus, “There is danger, of serious risk of prejudice if the media exercises an unrestricted and unregulated freedom such that it publishes photographs of the suspects or the accused before the identification parades are constituted or if the media publishes statements which out rightly hold the suspect or the accused guilty even before such an order has been passed by the Court”
The case of R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court clearly stated it would be a sad day for the court to employ the media for setting its own house in order and the media too would not relish the role of being the snoopers for the Court. Media should perform the acts of journalism and not as a special agency for the Court. 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.

One of the most sensational crimes of that time, the Aarushi Talwar murder case too had gone through the media trial process. Even while the case was in the investigation stage, the media were framing her parents as culprits and one of the popular channels conducted an SMS contest for the viewers to predict the murderer in the case. There were instances where the media tried to cook up false accusations against the accused such as the parents’ extramarital affairs and the possibility that Aarushi could be an adopted child. Years later, the CBI had to close the case due to a lack of evidence.
A very recent example of a media trial is actor Sushant Sigh Rajput’s suicide and the related criminal activities that unfolded following the investigation. The popular media targeted each and every single person associated with the actor’s personal and professional life including Bollywood filmmaker Karan Johar, the actor’s partner, and actor Rhea Chakrobarty and on a later stage of the investigation the evidence showing Rhea Chakrobarty’s involvement in narcotics gave rise to a whole new narrative which converted the whole incident as a murder case without any substantial evidence to believe so. Even if it were, the media were taking the whole issue at its hand and playing the role of a judge. It was a time when the pandemic had reached its zenith and focus was needed in that area as well, but the media channeled their full attention to this matter without adhering to any basic code of conduct or ethics. It was a media trial at its highest possible level. The “prime time debates” that aired almost every single day had a huge impact on the viewers and led to a huge public outcry against the actor. Apart from targeting the persons and assassinating their character, A major problem regarding the issue was that it was very sensitive in the sense that it was essentially a suicide case, and reporting such an incident needs special care. In 2008, the World Health Organisation in collaboration with the International Association for Suicide Prevention issued certain guidelines to be followed by the media while reporting suicide and attempted suicide cases such as; wording the headings and titles carefully, not sensationalizing the case, applying special care while reporting celebrity suicide cases as it could have a huge impact on the public. The Press Council of India had, in 2019 issued a set of guidelines in this regard and even they were not adhered to in Sushant Sigh’s case. Research has shown that responsible media reporting of suicides can reduce suicides by 1-2%.

ROLE OF LAW

Since it has been laid in various case laws by the Supreme Court that media trials are a threat to fair trials, the laws to protect fair trials shall be used against media trial.
• Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, any publication which interferes with, obstructs or tends to obstruct any proceeding, be it civil or criminal, and the course of justice, which is a pending proceeding, constitutes contempt of court. It has been termed as contempt because some of the acts which are published before the verdict given by the court can mislead the public and affect the rights of the accused of a fair trial.
• Court of Record- Article 129 of the constitution lays that, Supreme Court to be a court of record The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself and Article 225 lays that High Courts to be courts of record Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself
• The UN Basic Principles on Freedom of judiciary article 6 lays down the importance of Fair Trial. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also lays the same concept.
• In the case of Re P C Sen, the Supreme Court held that anything that interferes with the authority of the court at the time of trial shall be considered to be contempt of court
• In K V Hanumantha Rao v K Pattabhiram, there was a curfew declared in the city of Hyderabad which was challenged before the court. while the matter was still in court, “Deccan Chronicles” published an article about the details of the curfew and its historical backgrounds. The Court held that, while a matter is pending in the court for trial, no comments that would cause substantial danger of prejudice on the trail, and such comment shall be considered as contempt.
• In Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration and Ors, the Delhi High Court held that decision of a court shall be based on the facts of the case and the evidence and not based on the media narrative.
The 200th Law Commission titled, Trial by Media: Free Speech versus Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) analyzed the issue with the view to come up with legal solutions. It is a comprehensive report which entails the impact of media trials in society as well as the judiciary. It made some valid point with respect to the issue such as the effects of media trials on the lives of an accused person even after acquittal – “ If media exercises unrestricted or rather unregulated freedom in publishing information about a criminal case and prejudices the mind of the public and those who are to adjudicate on the guilt of the accused and if it projects a suspect or an accused as if he has already been adjudged guilty well before the trial in court, there can be serious prejudice to the accused. In fact, even if ultimately the person is acquitted after the due process in courts, such an acquittal may not help the accused to rebuild his lost image in society.”
The report recommended some amendments in the Contempt of Courts Act to prevent media trial. As per the original Act section 3(2full immunity is granted to publications even if they prejudicially interfere with the course of justice in a criminal case, if by the date of publication, a charge sheet or challan is not filed or if summons or warrant are not issued. Such publications would be contempt only if a criminal proceeding is actually pending i.e. if charges sheet or challan is filed or summons or warrant are issued by the Court by the date of publication., it was recommended that this has to start from the moment of arrest o the accused.
It also recommended that the High Courts be granted the power to give directions to press to postpone reporting of matters pending before the court.

CONCLUSION

Press rights and the right to fair trial ought not to have been conflicting had the media been not indulging in excessive activism. It has come to a situation where the concept of presumption of innocence, the very essence of the criminal jurisprudence is under serious threat. The moment the identity of the accused persons is revealed, the media sensationalize the issue with ulterior motives that are driven only by commercial interests. Despite having a set of guidelines and a legal framework to prevent this anomaly, it still continues to happen. This calls for reforms in the legal framework and the legislature needs to interfere. On one side, the media is been attacked and silenced and on the other, the media is literally conducting trials and taking the roles of the courts, law has to maintain a balance.

The post The conflict between press rights and government control – an analysis of the contemporary trends in press rights and the need for curtailing media trial appeared first on LexForti .

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

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

The post Supreme Court on Media Trial in India appeared first on LexForti .