Media Trial: Headlines vs Justice in India
Have the Newsrooms Become the New Courtrooms in India?
The current newsrooms are simply competing to declare a person guilty or not before the judiciary. The actual facts of a case are frequently overshadowed by breaking news headlines, prime-time arguing debates, hashtags, and viral posts.
Instead of informing us, the media sometimes builds its own false narrative. And when millions watch and believe it the consequences become very real.
So the big question is: “Why is the media passing a verdict before the jury?”
What is “Trial by Media”?
The two pillars of democracy are the judiciary and the media. In courts, justice is founded on evidence and the rule of law. When the establishment is wrong, the media is used to bring the truth out and ask questions.
However, in the instances where the media begins to become judge and jury, the distinction is petty and justice becomes entertainment.
Trial by Media is a kind of a trial that involves people making their own verdict on whether the accused is guilty or not through media coverage of a trial and not through the results of the court trial.
This can:
Damage their dignity and reputation
Influence witnesses
Pressure investigating agencies
Affect public trust in the court
This is a serious threat in India where nearly everybody puts their faith in TV debates rather than laws.
Freedom of Speech is Not Absolute.
One of the activities safeguarded by the Constitution is free expression.
Article 19(1) (a)- Freedom of expression and information.
Article 19(2) - allow restriction for:
Public order
National security
Decency & morality
Defamation
Contempt of court
So the press has a right- but does not have the right to ruin someone's life for TRPs.
What Media Can or Can't Do
CAN DO :
Report verified facts from official sources
Highlight injustice and corruption
Question delays in courts
Criticize institutions responsibly
CAN NOT DO :
Call someone a criminal before judgment
Reveal victim identities (especially sexual offences)
Publish leaked or confidential investigation details
Spread rumors or defame individuals
These are not restrictions of free speech, but they are the assurances of justice. The Indian media is regulated by a number of laws and ethical codes which make reporting to be accurate, fair, and non-prejudiced.
The act of Press Council of India,1978 has the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, which stipulates the need to be accurate, impartial and responsible in reporting. The Press Council has the power to either warn or pronounce newspapers who go against these standards.
The Programme Code provided in the Cable Television Networks ( Regulation ) Act 1995 prohibits any material that is defamatory, violent, prejudices a court of law, or damages the peace of society. Television stations would need to make sure that their programming is in accordance with these.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 regulates the online media and the law facilitates discouraging the malicious, harmful, or irresponsible online content.
Collectively, the laws provide that the media reports to the citizens without jeopardizing an investigation underway and the dignity of individuals as well as trial justice. It is not aimed at silencing the press, just to make sure that it operates in a responsible and ethical manner and within the benefit of the populace.
A Well-Known Example
The Uma Khurana case is one of the most vivid examples of a destructive media trial. In 2007, TV stations defamed a schoolteacher in Delhi as a prostitution racket organizer after a sting operation. The video subsequently proved to be fake, although unfortunately by the time it was discovered, the media fire had already caused people to become angry, violent, and the damage to her dignity and her career was irreparable. This case demonstrates how sensationalism can ruin the life of a person who is innocent even before the start of a court process.
What the Supreme Court Said:
The Supreme Court has issued numerous warnings regarding the invasion of media in ongoing investigations.
R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009): The Court ruled that the media should not interfere or manipulate the judicial process.
Sahara India Real Estate Corp. vs. SEBI, (2012) - Courts may restrict reporting temporarily during ongoing legal proceedings to protect a fair trial..
These examples indicate that media trials are not only social issues, it is an attack by the media on justice. These cases are examples of how the media can influence the adjudication.
Psychological and Social Damages
The aftermath of the media generated accusations goes way beyond television sets. Studies indicate that victims of wrongful accusation are usually the persons who are publicly labeled as criminals. The immediate effect of social exclusion is its instant adoption by the population assimilating media discourses and alienating itself. Layoffs and reputation loss are usual and the study states that such accusations have a devastating effect on social status and opportunities in the future.
Secondary victimisation occurs by bullying, stigma and abrupt isolation by families. Shame, dysfunctional relationships and emotional unsteadiness become the order of the day and the study points to permanent identity destabilization and stress.This leads to anxiety and psychological suffering after acquittal since the reputational damage is sometimes longer than the legal one.
This sensationalized coverage only undermines the belief in the justice system of people, where even the prime-time stories can make the news thump facts that a court can not determine the truth before.
Positive Side: When Media Works towards Justice.
The media need not always be villanized, it can also safeguard the people too. The case of Jessica Lal murder is one of the strongest examples. The public uproar and the media attention prompted the reopening of the case and the punishment of the offenders. The media gives a voice to victims who were initially disregarded. But it must be true, and not pageantry.
Remedies: The Solution to the Problem.
The following are just some of the basic steps that can be of great help in ensuring the media is fair:
Report verified facts only
Stricter punishment to fake and malicious news.
Official press releases of the court are to be offered in sensitive trials.
It should be made known to the public not to use what they see on the headlines as the truth.
Justice and media is a symbiotic relationship. However, only in the case when they respect the boundaries of one another.
Conclusion
The media is one of the strongest voices in our society and that voice must be responsible. When the media becomes a courtroom, the right to a fair trial becomes a joke. Accused people suffer lifelong consequences based on rumors, not judgments.The media only makes justice, not replace. The next time we come across a dispute that is blown out of proportion, or a Time magazine headline about some scandal we must ask ourselves:
Is this news or just noise?
A democracy functions optimally when the media and the judiciary are doing their job, and truths of the matter win the day!
