Pre- trial Publicity – why not?
1. All sensational cases, more particularly criminal ones, raises interest of public.
2. The media coverage of the heinous crime is all over the airwaves and newspapers. Mostly, the mainstream media gives expository details of the cases. The public is made to be up in arms, screaming for blood of the alleged suspect. The words “Breaking News” keep flashing on the screen. Sometimes, the debates are shown on the backdrop of the graphics of courtroom itself and in the same way that it would be shown if you were really in the court room and able to view the proceedings. The scene is created with a panel of lawyers or even former Judges to bring more authenticity to the discussion.
3. For instance the murder of the young high-profile celebrity would catch an eye of the media, who knew that the public would devour more than just the news, they wanted more. The murder and its aftermath captured headlines for days till another fresh crispy subject comes to light. The relentless pressure of public anxiety fuels a palpable tension that hangs thick in the air, pushing law enforcement agencies and courts to the brink of their endurance. With unsteady hands, they work tirelessly against time, feeling an ever-growing sense of dread as their efforts come too little, too late. These pressures have taken different dimensions after the onset of electronic and social media.
4. It may be correct that pre-trial publicity undermines the criminal justice system. The right of accused as against the assertion of the right to free speech often comes in conflict. This has been a debate across the various jurisdictions across the world for many decades. Supreme Court of India way back in a 1997 in Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi case observed that a trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice.
5. It was soon after, that the famous Jessica Lal murder case came to light and put the said pronouncement to test all over again. The initial investigation was marred by several irregularities and discrepancies, and accused, Sharma was acquitted in 2006 due to lack of evidence. A public campaign was initiated by Media. Usually media, tracks court proceedings with it legal twists and turns, accept a court verdict as final and report . But not his one. It changed the course of how media reports court proceedings. Source NDTV https://www.ndtv.com/book-excerpts/behind-ndtvs-campaign-for-jessica-lal-by-sonia-singh-1425893
6. The Sessions Judgment was overturned by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court and accused were convicted. The Supreme Court, still , while upholding conviction observed that every effort should be made by the print and electronic media to ensure that the distinction between trial by media and informative media should always be maintained. The case is considered a landmark in India’s legal history, as Media highlighted the flaws in the criminal justice system and the need for impartial and fair investigations and eventually one agrees or not it impacted the judicial verdict.
7. True it is crucial to uphold the principles of fair and unbiased informative journalism to ensure that media coverage does not become a substitute for the legal system or interfere with the right to a fair trial. The media and law enforcement serve different purposes and have different responsibilities. While the media is required to be informative, law enforcement agencies are responsible for enforcing the law and protecting citizens. The courts play an essential role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice for all.
8. Media need to remain informative and avoid , interviews of witnesses, cross examine them, and hold trial by itself. The due process of law has a well-established mechanism and eliminates errors. The media ought not to encroach into the spheres of investigation and trial. The investigating agencies and court need to operate efficiently and adequately communicate with the public about their actions and decisions. When the public is informed and engaged, there is less potential for misunderstandings or interference by the media. The live telecast of proceedings is most certainly a step in that direction and hopefully will percolate down to the trials before the lower judiciary in times to come.
It is separate topic but more on that later.
Rajiv Talwar
