SCOPE
• Meaning of MEDIA TRIAL
• Constitution and Media Trial.
• History of Media Law
• Free Press V. Free Trial.
• Influence of Media on
- Witness
- Accused
- Judges and Court
•Justification by Media
•International Efforts
•Law Commission 200th Report.
•Suggestions: Social Responsibility
“I would rather have a completely free press with all the dangers
involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or
regulated press.”
(Mr. Nehru’s declaration in the course of a speech delivered on
20th June 1916 in protest against the Press Act, 1910.)
MEANING OF MEDIA TRIAL
Trial by Media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and
early 21st century 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.
HISTORY OF MEDIA LAW:
•
First enactment was in 1799 when Lord Wellesley
promulgated the Press Regulations which had the effect of
imposing prior restraints on an infant newspaper publishing
industry.
• The rigors of those regulations were eased in 1813 by the
administration of Lord Hastings
• After Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, The Government clamped down
on the publication of writings deemed seditious and imposed
punitive sanctions on printers and publishers who failed to fall
in line.
•Lord Ripon as Viceroy in 1880. Ripon’s first acts on assuming
office was to repeal the unpopular measure
•Birth of Indian National Congress, newspapers began adopting a
more assertive stance leading to friction between the press and
the government, which led to more stringent measures aimed at
curtailing the freedom of press.
•After the Second World War ended, talks on the transfer of power
began and most of the controls on the press were dismantled.
•After independence, and after the adoption of the Constitution,
freedom of the press in this country has grown.
•During the emergency of 1975, imposition of severe censorship
on the press.
Contd..
In Romesh Thapar Vs. State of Madras, [AIR 1950 SC 124 ]
and in several subsequent cases strict and narrow limits have been
placed on the Legislative powers to abridge the right conferred
by Article 19(1) (a). Any restriction on Article 19(1) (a) can only
be valid if three conditions are met: •
•
It is supported by the authority of law;
The law in question is related to one or more of the permitted
heads of restrictions laid down under Article 19(2); and
• The restriction is reasonable.
Contd..
Express Newspapers Limited vs. Union of India,
[AIR 1958 SC 578 at 621]
•It was held that it is also necessary that the procedure and the
manner in which the restriction is imposed be just, fair and
reasonable.
•Supreme Court exhaustively dealt with freedom of the press but
stated that it can not be unbridled. Like other freedoms, it can also
suffer reasonable restrictions.
Contd..
•The subject of ‘trial by media’ or prejudice due to ‘pre-trial’
publications by the media is closely linked with Article 19(1)(a)
Which guarantees the fundamental right of ‘freedom of speech
and expression’.
• The extent to which that right can be reasonably restricted under
Article 19(2) by law for the purpose of Contempt of Court and
for maintaining the due process to protect liberty.
• The basic issue is about balancing the freedom of speech and
expression and undue interference with administration of
justice within the framework of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, as permitted by Article 19(2).
Contd..
•That it should be done without unduly restricting the rights of
suspects/ accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
for a fair trial.
FREE PRESS AND FREE TRIALS
•The freedom of the press stems from the right of the public in a
democracy to be involved on the issues of the day, which affects
them.
•People cannot adequately influence the decisions that affect their
lives unless they can be adequately informed on the facts and
arguments relevant to the decisions.
•Much of such fact-finding and argumentation necessarily has to
be conducted vicariously, the public press being a principal
instrument. This is also the justification for investigative and
campaign journalism.
Contd..
•The Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
contain provisions aimed at safeguarding the right to fair trial.
•Restrictions are imposed on the discussion or publication of
matters relating to the merits of a case pending before a Court.
•The problem does not lie in media’s exposing the lacuna of a bad
investigation by cops, or mal-performance of the duties ordained
to the civil servants but the eye-brows start to raise when the
media ultra vires its legitimate jurisdiction and does what it must
not do.
•Be it highlighting the sub-judice issues into public keeping at
stake the sanctity of judicial procedures and ‘right to life with
dignity’ of accused and suspects.
•Media has now reincarnated itself into a ‘public court’ (Janta
Adalat).
• It completely overlooks the vital gap between an accused and a
convict.
•The golden principles of ‘presumption of innocence until proven
guilty’ and ‘guilt beyond reasonable doubt’ are overlooked.
•The media is there to report facts or news and raise public
issues; it is not there to pass judgments.
INFLUENCE OF MEDIA ON ACCUSED
• If media 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.
• 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.
• Excessive publicity in the media characterizing him as a person
who had indeed committed the crime, it amounts to undue
interference with the “administration of justice”, calling for
proceedings for contempt of court against the media.
INFLUENCE OF MEDIA ON WITNESS
•If the identity of witnesses is published, there is danger of the
witnesses coming under pressure both from the accused or his
associates as well as from the police.
•At the early stage, the witnesses wants to retract and get out of
the muddle.
•Witness protection is then a serious casualty. This leads to the
question about the admissibility of hostile witness evidence and
whether the law should be amended to prevent witnesses
changing their statements.
INFLUENCE OF MEDIA ON
JUDGES AND COURT
•Judges are not immune from criticism either in respect of their
judicial conduct or their conduct in a purely private capacity. But
it is for concern when criticisms of them are ill-informed or
entirely without foundation, and may have a tendency to
undermine public confidence in judicial institutions.
•A Judge is to guard himself against such pressure a media
publication can ‘unconsciously’ influence Judges or Juries and
whether Judges, as human beings are not susceptible to such
indirect influences, at least subconsciously or unconsciously.
State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi
[1997 (8) SCC 386.]
The Supreme Court has held that a trial by press, electronic media
or by way of a public agitation is the very anti-thesis of rule of
law and can lead to miscarriage of justice.
The contempt of court act defines contempt by identifying it as
civil and criminal . Criminal is further divided into three types:
1. Scandalizing
2. Prejudicing trial
3. Hindering the administration of the justice.
JUSTIFICATION BY MEDIA
•The media did us proud at every juncture of certain criminal
affairs.
•Now that the Courts have come under the media’s microscope,
they are likely to remain there forever. As with most changes
both positive and negative consequences have flowed from this.
•A Positive by-product of changes spurred by the media and
addressed by the Courts is that more Indians are aware of their
constitutional rights than ever before.
INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS
In 1994, a group of 39 distinguished legal experts and media
representatives, convened by the International Commission of
Jurists, its Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers,
and the Spanish Committee of UNICEF, met for three days in
Madrid, Spain. The objectives of the meeting were •To examine the relationship between the media and judicial
independence,
•To formulate principles to help the media and the judiciary
•Develop a relationship that serves both freedom of the
expression and the judicial independence.
Contd..
The participants came from Brazil, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom,
Sweden, Jordan, Australia, Ghana, France, India, Spain, Germany,
Austria, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland,
Senegal, Palestine, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Slovakia.
LAW COMMISSION 200TH REPORT
Under the chairmanship of J USTICE M. JAGANNADHA RAO
August,2006, Following recommendations had been made:
1. To address the damaging effect of sensationalized news
reports on the administration of justice.
2.Prohibiting publication of anything that is prejudicial towards
the accused — a restriction that shall operate from the time of
arrest.
3.The High Court be empowered to direct postponement of
publication or telecast in criminal cases and to restrain the
media from resorting to such publication or telecast.
4.The starting point of a criminal case should be from the time of
arrest of an accused and not from the time of filing of the charge
sheet. In the perception of the Commission such an amendment
would prevent the media from prejudging or prejudicing the case.
CONCLUSION/SUGGESTIONS:
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Media has wide reach and a more effective and a more direct
approach to the people. That is why it is called as a fourth pillar
of the society.
•The media often act and should act as the alter ego of the
society and should therefore faithfully reflect its mood, its
thinking and its problems and report events which affects public
interest.
•While presenting facts it must give their context and discuss
their pros and cons to enable people to grasp properly their
significance and to form their informed views to them.
THANK YOU