“I would rather have a complete free press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated press”
–Jawaharlal Nehru
Abstract
The media, touted as the societal bridge and the fourth pillar of democracy, risks transforming into a purveyor of sensationalism under the guise of journalism. Recent events underscore a disturbing trend where commercial media outlets, driven by the pursuit of TRPs and competitive fervour, metamorphose into pseudo-public courts. This shift sees them orchestrating trials sans concrete evidence, undermining not only public perception but also the integrity of judicial proceedings. While Article 19(1)(a) grants media the right to free speech and expression, Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions. Alas, the stark reality reveals a blatant disregard for these restrictions, as media soap operas present a distorted narrative, subtly but detrimentally influencing public opinion. This paper delves into the detrimental impact of media trials on society and, specifically, on the accused. Examining cases like Sushant Singh Rajput, Arushi Talwar, and Jessica Lal, it sheds light on the media’s misuse of granted rights for audience acquisition and TRP gains.
Introduction
The media, often hailed as the societal bridge and the fourth pillar of democracy, stands at a critical juncture. The recent trend of sensationalism in the guise of journalism threatens the very fabric of our society1. The emergence of quasi-illegitimate trials, fuelled by baseless assumptions, raises alarming questions about the media’s role in shaping public discourse.
While the Indian constitution does not explicitly grant freedom to the press, Article 19(1)(a) ensures the freedom of speech and expression. Despite lacking specific rights, judicial precedents
1 Arunav Talukdar, “Media Trial and right to freedom of speech and expression: An Analysis”, 2018, p 22
have acknowledged the underlying principles. However, the judiciary has yet to address the detrimental impact of media’s negative commercialization on fundamental human rights.
In the pursuit of higher TRP ratings and staying ahead in the competitive race, commercial media channels now engage in trials based on assumptions and suspicions rather than solid evidence.
This not only distorts public opinions but also jeopardizes judicial proceedings. Legal cases such as Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras2, Union of India v Association for Democratic reforms3,recognize the freedom of the press and its right to express opinions. However, Article 19(2) fails to address the violation of one’s reputation in the context of media trials, operating within the reasonable restriction framework.
The crux of the matter lies in the media’s ethical decline, driven by the pursuit of higher TRP and sensationalism. The prevailing ethos prioritizes drama over truth, where the more dramatic a topic, the higher the TRP, regardless of the actual veracity. Urgent measures are needed to curb the media’s actions before irreversible damage is done to the fundamental human rights of individuals. It is imperative to act swiftly, as the current trajectory poses a threat that cannot be ignored any longer.
The Witch Hunt
The litmus test for the legitimacy of media rights hinges on the response of democratic society to the inundation of debates, deliberations, and segments presented by the paid media. While proponents extol the media as the fourth pillar of democracy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, “with sagacious foresight, cautioned against an unchecked freedom of the press that could plunge society into disorder and anarchy” 4, a prescient prophecy validated by the media sensationalism surrounding cases like Sushant Singh Rajput5, Aarushi Talwar6, Jessica Lal7, and others.
Undoubtedly, the media’s ostensible duty is to disseminate facts to the public devoid of assumptions, speculations, opinions, or suspicions that could sway public opinion or impede judicial proceedings. However, the reality often diverges, with media trials undeniably encroaching on the right to a fair trial and impartial investigation. The contention that media
2 Romesh Thappar v The State of Madras (1950) AIR 154. “Freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisation, for without free political discussion, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible.
3 Union of India v Association of Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCR 294
4 In Re: Harijai Singh and Another, (1996) 6 SCC 466, AIR 1997 SC 73.
5 Prerna Lidhoo, “Arushi Talwar to Rhea Chakraborty: A tale of two media trials and zero lessons learnt”(The wire,01 September 2020) <https://thewire.in/media/rhea-chakraborty-sushant-singh-rajput- aarushi-talwarmedia-trial>
6 Dr. Smt. Nupur Talwar v State of UP And Anr. On 12 October 2017
7 Manu Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1
trials operate within the bounds of the constitution is belied by the undeniable disruptions and prejudices they inject into legal processes8.
While Supreme Court verdicts have ostensibly championed the freedom of the press9 and its right to hold opinions akin to any citizen, the insidious influence of media trials persists10. These quasi-judicial proceedings, operating under the guise of “public courts,” leverage constitutional provisions to shape a symbiotic relationship between the media and its silent partners, steering public attention toward issues of their choosing.
Freedom of Speech and Expression
At the core of media’s purported responsibility lies the delivery of authentic and informative facts, as granted by the Indian Constitution. However, the evolution of media over the years has seen an unprecedented expansion of its scope, particularly in the digital era11. The Sushant Singh Rajput case serves as a poignant example where the media, wielding the fundamental right of speech, callously tarnished the characters and relationships of the deceased and accused for the sake of garnering higher TRP.
While constitutional provisions exist to impose reasonable restrictions on media excesses, the precarious distinction between “delivery of information” and “trial by media” remains. The media, despite lacking the competence and authorization to conduct trials, flouts norms established by the Press Council of India with an arrogance that disregards the principles intended to safeguard fair and unbiased reporting12.
In essence, the media’s overreach, propelled by sensationalism and a relentless pursuit of ratings, threatens the very foundations of democracy and justice. The delicate equilibrium between freedom of the press and responsible reporting must be restored, recognizing that an unchecked media can undermine the principles it purports to uphold.
The Unwarranted trial and its impact
8 In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat. (2004) 4 SCC 158
“It is a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that “every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the guilt is proved”. However, the manner in which people accused of crimes are portrayed in popular media, and the consequences that these people have to suffer thereafter, in almost all cases notwithstanding the final verdict of the court of law, is and always been, a matter of concern for all democratic, republican systems based on a written constitution and rule of law.” ‘A Comparative Survey of the Law of Bail in India and Canada’ by Khagesh Gautam & Sebastien Lafrance in the book titled “Taking Bail Seriously- The State of Bail Jurisprudence in India.”
9 Sakal papers v Union of India
10 Sakal papers v Union of India
11 Mr. Nilesh Navalakha v Union of India (2020) PIL ST no. 92252
12 The press is expected to keep in mind the principle of natural justice and fair investigation in any case.
Publicity, whether deemed good or bad, serves as the lifeblood of the media industry. Each click on a link, regardless of personal sentiments towards the news, translates into revenue. Every second of viewership, whether in agreement or opposition, contributes to the financial success of media outlets. The undeniable truth is that media trials, while violating fundamental rights, are thriving as a lucrative source for generating TRP. Despite being a blatant infringement we willingly tune in to witness the drama and follow the latest developments.
Media trials wield an unparalleled power to shape public emotions and, to a certain extent, influence judicial sentiments. Transforming tragedies into sensational dramas, they navigate the delicate balance between news reporting and entertainment. The cherished principle of “Innocent until proven guilty” safeguards the right to a fair trial, but restraining the media from conducting parallel trials or holding them accountable for defamation13 proves to be a formidable challenge.
Furthermore, it can be argued that the right to information, even if based on false assumptions, is a fundamental right of the people. This exercise of rights, however, subtly influences judges, creating an indirect but detrimental impact14. Despite legal precedents deeming inferences during the pre-trial period a direct violation of press immunity15 and contempt of court16, the media continues its relentless pursuit of drama and TRP at the expense of the dignity and reputation of individuals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the media, as a crucial communication medium and a pillar of democracy, occupies an indispensable role in individuals’ lives. However, this role comes with the responsibility to adhere to certain ethical boundaries while exercising their rights. The pursuit of TRP should not permit the abandonment of principles or the abuse of the rights of others. Even if individuals are ultimately acquitted, the emotional and physical toll endured during media trials remains irreversible. The high-profile cases like SSR or Aryan Khan’s drug trial exemplify how media, driven by a thirst for drama and TRP, is willing to tarnish reputations solely for attracting an audience.
13 Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India, (2012) 6 MLJ 772
14 In Re: P.C. Sen, it was stated that “genuine risk of prejudicial remarks made in newspapers or by any mass media which must be guarded against is the ―impression that such comments might have on the Judge‘s mind or even on the minds of witnesses for a litigant.”; Rao Harnarain vs Gumani Ram (1958) AIR P H 273
15 Y.V. Hanumantha Rao v K.R. Pattavhiram and Anr (1975) AIR AP 30; Leo Roy Frey v R. Prasad and Ors (1958) AIR P&H 377
16 In Re: P.C. Sen (1970) AIR SC 1821. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 3- Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt
Moreover, our justice system upholds the fundamental right to a fair trial, coupled with the principle of natural justice that presumes an individual innocent until proven guilty. The actions of the media, which often run counter to these principles, must be subject to reasonable restrictions before irreparable damage is done. As society evolves, it is imperative to strike a balance between the media’s right to information and the preservation of individuals’ rights, ensuring a fair and just legal process that withstands the sensationalism of media trials17.
17Law Commission of India, 200th report on Trial by media; free speech versus fair trial under criminal procedure (amendment to the contempt of courts Act, 1971), (17th Law Commission of India)
Author : Vaishali Prasad, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at IIPRD.
