Media Trial – Media Intervention and Justice Delivery


“The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses” - Malcolm X. 

A free and responsible Media is a significant feature of a democratic country. In our country, it has been termed as the fourth pillar of democracy.  A free media is the voice of the people and mirror of the society, whose responsibility is to show what is happening around them. Media intervention ensures people's freedom of speech and expression. For it is important that the press in any country should be free from any interference, the freedom of the press is regarded as the mother of all liberties in a democratic society. It is a primary reason why our constitution has ensured the freedom of the press through Article 19(1) (a).

In recent times, Media have played a critical role in generating awareness and making sure justice is delivered. In cases like the Jessica Lal murder case and the Priyadarshini Matoo case media pointed out that justice was not only delayed but denied. But then the awareness and pressure created by media worked. In Jessica Lal’s case it took 7 years for the court to come to the conclusion that the evidence was not conclusive to punish the accused, a rich brat. The family of Jessica Lal had lost all hope. However, Media took the initiative to get Justice for Jessica. They picked up right from the point where the police had left. The cry for justice instilled in the public by the media put pressure on police, administration, and the government to resolve the matter quickly. Ultimately the accused Manu Sharma son of a high-profile political figure was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Another high-profile case where credit should be given to media was the Priyadarshini Matoo Case. In this case, a 23 year old young energetic law student from Delhi University was first raped and then brutally murdered by his senior Santosh Singh who was the son of a senior IPS officer. When after 3 years of the court proceedings the court acquitted Santosh Singh, it seemed that Priyadarshini Matoo would never get justice, however media initiated a widespread effort for investigative journalism in order to find out the loopholes in the police investigation and it was ultimately due to their effort that CBI was able to nab the culprits. In cases such as these, a responsible media contributed to the cause of the justice, Media have shown that a responsible media can play a positive role in the society and can contribute to the cause of justice.

Though active media’s role in the smooth functioning of democracy cannot be denied, but at times, Media had taken to itself the role of judiciary. Over the years, Media have also tried to create sensation in number of the high-profile cases. In 2008, in Noida, a double murder case popularly known as Arushi Talwar case, Media created a huge uproar and it seemed that parallel courts were set up by the Media houses. Some of them even started asking people to send the SMS about who they think was the killer. For over months media continued to play different stories, at times they played up the honour killing theory showing the Talwars as the main culprit and after some time they turned up with the theory of illicit relationship between Hemraj and Arushi. Later on, some of the channels explored the angle of the father having extra marital affairs and then both the parents killing their only child. Some of the channels went overboard and called the psychologist to assesses the behaviour of the mother. The case continued for ages and after nine years of trauma, Talwars were acquitted but before that media had already convicted them.

The Bhima- Koregaon case is another example of how media’s desire of creating sensation can have an adverse impact on the criminal administration system. In this case, some activists were arrested under suspicion by the Maharashtra Police. Police had got an important lead regarding the case in form of 13 letters which showed the connection of Communist Party of India (Maoist) to the blast. However, these crucial sources of information were leaked in the media ultimately creating an utter chaos. The result was that the court had to drop these letters from the list of primary evidence.

The recent case of Sushant Singh Rajput is another blatant example of how the Media trials could not only impact the process of justice, but also create havoc in the life of the people who are involved in the case. Media analysed the involvement of each and every person involved in the case, but things went overboard when the character assassination of the people involved in the case started. There were few news channels who had deputed their reporters on the gate of Riya Chakraborty’s house 24x7 to create sensational news and present it to the audiences. When police had framed charges against Riya and later the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) had been interrogating her day in and day out, media had already declared her guilty. They continued to mob her and bombard with allegations rather than questions. Few of the pictures broke the barrier of decency.

Sushant Singh’s Rajput’s case is a tragic example of TRP, breaking all the ethical standards of journalism. During the Media Trial, questions were raised not only on Riya Chakraborty and her family but also on Mumbai Police and indirectly at the Bombay High Court.

Free Media is an important symbol of democracy, it represents a society which has the freedom of speech and expression. In times of despair, it becomes the duty of the media to raise voice against injustice. This is the reason why the civil societies prefer to have free media.

The role of the media is a crucial one in a free society. It has the ability to impact the mind of the people and could be termed as the most powerful medium of communication. This is the reason why Media has to play its role sensibly. While it is important that they must raise the important issues, but it is also pertinent that they must draw a line for themselves, judgement must not be passed; in fact, they should play the role which might help the investigating agencies rather than creating obstacles and judging them.

Media in India is regulated by the Prasar Bharti Act 1990 and the Cable Networks Act 1995. In 2004, Broadcasting and cable services were also included under this ambit. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) frames rules regarding this sector. Currently TRAI, the regulator of the telecom sector in India has been given additional responsibility to regulate the media and broadcasting.

Considering the size of the sector it is important that there should be a separate regulator who can keep an eye on the media’s role. Such an authority must be independent from government control to ensure the freedom of media. It should however carefully play the role of a watch dog ensuring that media houses don’t cross the line set by it.


 

About the Author :A Postgraduate in Law from Maharashtra National Law University –Mumbai, Abhishek Srivastava works as an Assistant Professor of  Law in the Alliance University. His area of specialization is Sports Law and over the years he has published multifarious articles and research papers on different legal topics.

 


Written By:
Abhishek Srivastava

Post a Comment

0 Comments