Media trial is a new emerging trend now in which media come forward to investigate truth of a criminal offence. The TV studio in this trial becomes a court room. The anchor and panellists act as juries, prosecutors, judges and executioners. Details of the sexual offences are blatantly revealed and brought to the public domain.
No respect is given to the victim's right to privacy, nor to the alleged assailant’s right to defence. Media creates a wide spread sense of guilt and innocence of a person or persons involved in a crime before or after a judgement is given in a court of law.
Media calls it investigative journalism, though very often it becomes cruelly sensational. Recently there was media trial of controversial death of Susant Singh Rajput. Susant Singh Rajput was a film actor. He hailed from Bihar. He was found dead in his residence in Mumbai. It was believed to be a suicide by hanging. But some TV channels and news papers painted it as a murder.
There were prime time debates on it in TV studios. Emotional stories were told; so called evidences were shown : one young actress, Rhea Chakraborty, a good girl friend of Susant Singh Rajput was allegedly projected as an abettor of suicide or murderer. The media trials of Susant Singh Rajput's death case continued unabated for over two months. The public opinions were made and unmade.
The whole country was divided, and seriously gripped over this issue as if there was nothing serious in this country except the alleged suicide case of an actor. The social media and online media networking made the life stories of Susant and Rhea quite interesting. The trials ended abruptly just after the Bihar Assembly elections were over. The police investigation is still on.
Media trial is not absolutely a new phenomenon which is just happening now. It has visibly started since the last part of 1990s, more precisely in 1999 when Jesika Lal was murdered. Jesika was a model. She was working in a restaurant in Delhi. In a dead of night at 2 am, a boy asked her for drink and offered her one thousand rupees to share drink with her. When Jesika refused, the boy in an inebriated condition shot her on the spot. She died. The boy was Manu Sharma, the son of an influential politician. In the trial court all the accused in Jesika Lal murder case were acquitted. The charge sheet against them was said to be weak with unsubstantiated evidence. The old father of Jesika was crying for justice.
Before hearing on appeal began in the court, the media trial began in the Press and Tv studios. There was public demand for justice for Jesika. SMSs and emails flooded the Press in support of Jesika.
Public opinions were formed branding Manu Sharma as guilty. Sharma was convicted by the court despite well and wise defence by the then veteran lawyer, Ram Jethmalani Question is asked why media is interfering in the court proceedings overlooking the principle that an accused is innocent till he is proved guilty. Media's answer to it is very straight. It is answered; trial by media or media trial is a part of freedom of expression guaranteed under article 19 of the constitution of India.
Moreover, there is always huge delay in giving judgement by the court on a sensitive criminal case. Justice delayed is justice denied and understandably in many cases justice is not being seen to be done. Therefore, in the process of investigating journalism, media tries to arrive at truth earlier, it is thus argued.
But for some critics , these arguments are not tenable because media is not a mission now. It is a business. It is more fashionable than passionate. It has become a marketing juggernaut. It is running behind circulation or TRP (Television Rating Point) for money making. In fact, TRP presently is the tool to judge which programmes are watched the most. It is an index of viewers' choice. Accordingly the advertisers give their advertisements and investors invest which have made the media vulnerable to manipulation by influential players. Media is not spotless either.
There is also interest of entitlements surrounding some prominent journalists with some specific political agenda . Media power is misused, it is thus strongly alleged. Undoubtedly there has been ethical dilemma now between two estates such as the judiciary and the Press, two strong pillars of Indian democracy.
Both are designed to play the vital roles to make democracy vibrant. Can a TV channel hold a public court in the name of trial by media, transparency and right to freedom of speech? Has it right to tarnish any one's reputation by creating wide spread sense of guilt before a court's judgement? On these questions, the court has leaned in favour of the fair trials by the regular judicial courts over freedom of expression. Although media has right to report the court proceedings, it has no right to declare an accused guilty without being tried in the court of law. Recently, the Bombay High Court on menace of media trial in Susant Singh Rajput case has observed that if any TV channel has any evidence or any incriminating materials against any person in connection with an alleged crime, it has the bounding duty to provide such information to the concerned investigating police officer to facilitate the proper investigation as provided under sections 37 to 39 of CRPC. Indian media, needless to say, is a responsible estate of Indian democracy. It has the ability to mould public opinion. It can ably create strong public emotions and prejudice. Media therefore, should refrain from taking any stand in any high profile case and prejudge guilt or innocence of any person allegedly involved in any crime before the court delivers the judgement. It should avoid conflict with judiciary at large. Fair trial should not be jeopardised in the end.
The News Broadcasting Authority ( NBA) should not disown its responsibility as well. It ought to be strengthened to widen its jurisdiction to every media channel and instruct it to avoid such practice of so called trial. Effort is to be made too to show that there is distinction between trial by media and informative media.
( A Gandhian author and columnist, lawyer, Puri, Ph no 9861469328)