|
Events & Issues
New Delhi, 8 September 2015
Trial by Media
MASALA THAN INFORMATION
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
Over the years reports and debates resembling trial by media
have grown enormously to reach the stage
of almost 24-hour non-stop television coverage of the Sheena Bora murder that
has come to light three years after the incident. In between, we have been
reading in newspapers and watching on television stories of several cases of
corruption, sting operations, rape and other heinous crimes, VIP behaviour,
etc., in elaborate day-to-day details and with heated arguments.
Printed and visual reports seem to confirm the presence of
“media circus” – a term used for media hype to denigrate intensive
coverage of tiny events out of proportion to their national importance.
The write-ups and shows are imitations of court hearings
with as much heat and anger. They are
nightmare for the accused as fearful as cross-questioning in a court with potential
to spoil their reputation for ever in their profession and in society.
Spokespersons for the defendants who are suspected criminals
and victims of media persecution in the debates are inclined to condemn the
programmes and reports as “media trial” inappropriate and misleading before
court decisions. Indeed understandable, as they throw a number of ideas and
raise doubts that may influence public opinion. Lawyer spokespersons take it
as their duty to defend their clients in the court of the media. The programmes
are literally verbal battles leading often to name calling and walk outs.
Trial by media is a phrase that has become popular since the
late 20th century to describe the harm done to a person’s reputation
by creating a perception of guilt before any verdict in a court of law through the
impact of press reports and TV coverage.
The phrase was first used in 1967 in a TV broadcast of “The
Frost Programme” hosted by David Frost based on interviews of famous
personalities. The interview with a suspected “insurance fraudster” in the UK created
resentment in legal circles that it would affect fair trial. TV executives also
expressed deep concern about likely effects of such programmes on the real life of the accused.
Cases of certain film celebrities facing decline in their
career including ban on their films due to media hunt despite court acquittal
are known in the US
also. Indeed, in the matter of providing publicity to men and matters, mass
media is much more powerful than courts.
Vigorous public
debates emanated in the UK
and US between those who advocated absolute freedom of expression and those who
cherished the right to privacy of every
individual in absolute terms. In the US, freedom of expression enjoys
such unquestionable importance that the right to fair trial seems to be given
only secondary place. It is believed that trials will not be influenced by
media reports. Freedom of the press is not specifically mentioned in the American
Constitution, but recognized by the Supreme Court.
Similar is the position in India where press freedom is
derived from freedom of speech and expression guaranteed as fundamental right
under article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
Trial by media has earned a significant space in public
media in India.
Hence, questions of its legality, limits, and usefulness have become matters
for serious public consideration.
As in the UK,
in India
too contempt of court proceedings restrict reporting of legal proceedings after
a person is formally arrested. Hence,
media trial takes place in the initial stages even before the police finds
clues of the crime. Sometimes, media findings precede police findings so as to
establish the utility of private investigations.
In another case involving a celebrity in the US, it is
reported that video clippings provided crucial evidence. Media challenged his
acquittal and thereafter, the camera planted by the media became a weapon of
far reaching consequences to the accused. The term “caught on camera” is often
used for the camera of news reporters and not just for CCTV cameras installed in public places or used by the crime police.
Trial by media is a follow up of investigative journalism –
a branch that concentrates on a specific
issue to bring out its entire history.
The unforgettable Watergate campaign is the outstanding example for
investigative journalism, which exposed the ramifications of political
corruption at the highest level.
Investigative journalism has exposed many social evils like
female infanticide, human trafficking, and orphanage racket in India. It has
brought to light lapses in accountability in high offices and instances of
corruption. From Bofors to 2G, the
contribution of mass media to pursue corruption cases and misuse of public
offices is immense. It has efficiently applied “sting operations.”
Some grievous crimes involving rich and the powerful (like
the Priyadarshini Matoo & Naina Sahni Tandoor murder case) would have
escaped punishments but for media exposure. At the same time, cases are not
wanting on unsubstantiated reporting of crimes in some media which have been
rejected by the Courts.
The Law Commission’s 200th Report submitted in
August 2006 dealt with Trial by Media relating to “free speech and fair trial”.
The issue was taken up suo moto in response to the extensive coverage of the crime and information about suspects and
accused in print and electronic media. The Commission felt that the pattern of
publication of news had changed and could have prejudicial impact on the suspects,
the accused, witnesses, and even judges,
and in general on the administration of justice.
The Report stated: “According to our law, a suspect/accused
is entitled to a fair procedure and is presumed to be innocent till proved
guilty in a court of law. None can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice his case
by the time it goes to trial”. The report, however, gave immunity till charge
sheet is filed.
It has recommended amendments to the Contempt of Court Act
1971 and measures of postponement of proceedings. It stated the balancing of
the rights of freedom of speech and due process of the suspect/accused can be
done by High Courts and not subordinate courts. The Report holds that the media
cannot exceed its limits under the garb of freedom of speech. High profile cases have important
implications for this balancing act.
In March 2012, in the Sahara India case, the Supreme Court
indicated laying down guidelines for the media on court reporting with a view
to striking a balance between freedom of the press and individual right to
life. During the hearing, the Bench expressed concern over trial by media in
pending criminal cases.
Recognized as the fourth pillar of democracy, the mass media
must be extremely careful in using technology that has conquered time and
distance. To be the first in reporting and to attract advertisements, it cannot
resort to unverified reporting and hasty conclusions.
However, it is an exaggeration to read in TV coverage of
crimes an attempt to influence the police and judicial authorities or the
general public. These authorities go by facts and evidence they collect and not
by media reports which are often subject to “minute by minute” changes.
The general public relish these programmes more as entertainment often much better than serial
stories depicting petty family quarrels and less as information. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
