1

“Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecution in the Age of Media

Trial in Light of Freedom Guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India”

PROJECT WORK
SUBMITTED IN MANDATORY FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF
REGULATIONS FOR PAPER III:
LEGAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY OF
LL.M. FIRST SEMESTER (2024-2026)
FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF LAWS
RANCHI UNIVERSITY, Ranchi (2024-2026)

SUPERVISOR: SUBMITTED BY:

Pal Priyam
Dr. Nishikant Prasad Course: LL.M.
Assistant Professor Semester: I (Session 2024-2026)
ILS, Ranchi Class Roll No: 52
Registration No: LLM00217/24
Institute of Legal Studies
Ranchi University, Ranchi

DECLARATION
 2

This is to certify the Project work entitled “Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecution
in the Age of Media Trial in Light of Freedom guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India” is a Bonafide record of research work undertaken by me under
the Supervision of Shri Nishikant Prasad, Assistant Professor Institute of Legal
Studies, Ranchi, India in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of
Master of Laws.
I also declare that this work is original, except where assistance from other sources
has been taken necessary acknowledgements for the same have been made at
appropriate places. I further declare that this work has not been submitted either in
whole or in part, for any degree or equivalent in any other institution. If any error or
lapses are found in this project work, I am personally responsible for the same.

Place: Ranchi Pal Priyam

Date: Roll No. 52
Session: 2024-2026

Shri Nishikant Prasad,

Assistant Professor,
Institute of Legal Studies,
Ranchi University, Ranchi
 3

CERTIFICATE

This is to Certify that I, Pal Priyam, a student of LL.M, Semester I, bearing class roll
No. 52, Registration no. LLM00217/24 Session 2024-2026 has completed the Project
Work on the topic of “Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecution in the Age of Media
Trial in Light of Freedom guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India”
under my supervision as a part of the mandatory requirement under regulations for
compulsory paper III: Legal and Social Science Research Methodology of LL.M first
semester and partial fulfilment for the award of the Degree of Master of Laws at
Centre for Post-Graduate Legal Studies, Institute of Legal Studies, Ranchi University,
Ranchi. The candidate has worked on and prepared this project work under my
supervision and as per my knowledge his work is original.

Place: Ranchi Shri Nishikant Prasad

Date: Supervisor
 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to my Supervisor Assistant

Professor Shri Nishikant Prasad I am fortunate enough to receive his wise counsel,
valuable inputs and guidance at every step of my work. I want to extend my sincere
thanks to (Dr.) S.N Mishra, Director and Assistant Prof. Dr. Nitesh Raj course
coordinator, Institute of Legal Studies, for their help and Support. Their expertise and
knowledge have been instrumental in shaping the depth and quality of this work. I
extend my thanks to other teaching Faculties of the Institute, for their constant
motivation and support. I am grateful to the non-teaching staff of the Institute as well;
I am indebted to the Library Staff of the Institute for Providing Access to the Research
Resources.
I would like to thank to my family and friends for their unwavering support and
motivation, which kept me inspired throughout the research and writing process.
Their patience and encouragement played a crucial role in helping me stay focused
and committed to this project.
 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION…………………………………………………………………. 2

CERTIFICATE ……………………………………………………………………3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………..............4

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………...7

1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM………………………………………………...14

1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS……………………………………………………15
1.3 HYPOTHESIS…………………………………………………………………15
1.4 OBJECTIVES………………………………………………............................16
1.5 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………….............16
1.6 SCOPE…………………………………………………………………………16
1.7 LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………...17

CHAPTER 2: CONCEPT OF TRIAL BY MEDIA AND ITS LEGAL

IMPLICATION…………………………………………………………………….19

2.1 MEANING OF MEDIA TRAIL……………………………………………….19

2.2 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND ITS COMPROMISE BY MEDIA
TRIALS…………………………………………………………………………….20
2.3 IMPACT OF MEDIA TRIALS VIS-A-VIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION………………………………………………………………………21

CHAPTER 3: RIGHT OF ACCUSED AND FREEDOM OF PRESS……………..25

3.1 PRIVACY AND RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN INDIA…………………………..25

3.2 MEDIA FREEDOM IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT…………………………….27
3.3 CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF FREE MEDIA………………………….27
3.4 CHALLENGES POSED BY FREE MEDIA IN INDIA………………………..28
3.5 STRIKING A BALANCE: THE WAY FORWARD…………………………...28
 6

CHAPTER 4: PROS AND CONS OF MEDIA TRAIL……………………………..32

4.1 MEDIA TRIALS: A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD…………………………………………….33

4.2 PROS OR BENEFITS OF MEDIA TRIAL………………………………………
34
4.3 EVILS OR CONS OF MEDIA TRIAL ………………………………………….34

CHAPTER 5: ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MEDIA………………….39

5.1NEED FOR RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM AND SELF-REGULATION…….39

5.2 ROLE OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM VS. SENSATIONALISM………40
5.3 ETHICAL DILEMMAS FACED BY JOURNALISTS………………………….41

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS …………………………….43

6.1 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………….43
6.2 SUGGESTIONS………………………………………………………………....45
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………....48
 7

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
India, like many other common law jurisdictions, has adopted an adversarial system
that governs criminal procedure. The duty to prosecute vests with the State whilst the
accused has got the right to defend himself against all the charges that have been
levelled against him. Furthermore, it is a well settled position that the right to a fair
trial comes under the umbrella of fundamental rights that are guaranteed by the
Constitution. The freedom of press is of paramount importance and is a fundamental
right under the ambit of freedom of speech and expression that is enshrined in Article
19 (1) (a) of our Constitution. In any functional democracy, the media described as the
fourth pillar of Democracy is often perceived to be a watchdog that keeps an eye on
the traditional organs of the State and its duty is to keep the citizens aware and
informed of local and global developments. But the ideal is sometimes far from
reality. Media is often seen to practice unnecessary norms for publicity and primarily
it’s a media trial.

In State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi1, the Apex Court observed as

follows:
"A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of the rule of
law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice".
this paper will explore the pros and cons of the rights of media as well as the accused
in a media trial.

The death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput has given rise to a controversy
which refuses to die; from the initial allegations of nepotism directed against
Bollywood veterans to the declaration of the deceased actor's girlfriend Rhea
Chakraborty as the culprit, the case is now being used as a tool to consolidate votes
for the upcoming Bihar Assembly Elections. Quite unethically though, a large section
of mainstream news media outlets have virtually declared Chakraborty as guilty – that
she besides treating Rajput merely as her financer also abetted his suicide; some even
stretched their conclusion to say that Rajput was in fact murdered by Chakraborty and
her aides only for want of money – thereby themselves being guilty of what is quite
un-popularly known as 'media trial'.

Recently, the Bombay High Court has Asked the Media To Show Restraint In
Reporting & Not To Hamper the Investigation In the Sushant Singh Rajput Case.

1
1997 (8) SCC 386
 8

India, like many other common law jurisdictions, has adopted an adversarial system
that governs criminal procedure. The duty to prosecute vests with the State whilst the
accused has the right to defend himself against all the charges that have been levelled
against him. There is always a presumption of innocence on the accused, until such an
accused is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of which lies heavily on
the prosecution. Furthermore, it is a well-settled position that the right to a fair trial
comes under the umbrella of fundamental rights that are guaranteed by the
Constitution.

The expression "trial by media" itself is a misnomer. The word "trial" has not been
defined either by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908("C.P.C." for short) or the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short) which are the basic statutes governing
the trial of civil and criminal cases by the respective courts in India. Black's Law
Dictionary (9th Edition) gives the word "trial" the following meaning: -
"a formal judicial examination of evidence and determination of legal claims in an
adversary proceeding".

Sec. 2(7) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 defines the word "trial" as under:
"trial means any hearing before the Court at which evidence is taken".

Thus, "trial" ordinarily means a proceeding before a Court of justice. If so, there
cannot be a trial by the media. But these words are often used to denote an exercise
undertaken by the media virtually taking up the role of a judicial forum for which
such exercise has been earmarked by the laws of the land. The Supreme Court of
India has had occasion to note the consequence of "trial by media" in the following
words:-

The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating

a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. During
high-publicity cases, the media are often accused of provoking
an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial
impossible but means that regardless of the result of the trial, in public perception the
accused is already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life
without intense public scrutiny". 2
In State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, the Apex Court observed as
follows:

2
293 of R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court -(2009) 8 SCC 106).
 9

"A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of the rule of
law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice".

The freedom of press is of paramount importance and is a fundamental right under the
ambit of freedom of speech and expression that is enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of
our Constitution. In any functional democracy, the media described as the fourth pillar
of Democracy is often perceived to be a watchdog that keeps an eye on the traditional
organs of the State and its duty is to keep the citizens aware and informed of local and
global developments. The past few decades have seen an evolution in the
dissemination of information – from news being traditionally obtained through print
or radio to the broadcast of news channels that emerged with the advent of electronic
media through the introduction of television and satellite networks. Moreover, the
internet has played a revolutionizing role, with the invention of social media by which
billions across the world voice their thoughts and opinions through various social
networking and streaming platforms that thrive on the internet.
The law, flowing primarily from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guarantees
"fair trial". A fair trial has two objects in view. It must be fair not only to the accused
but also to the prosecution. The trial must be judged from this dual point of view. 3It is,
therefore, necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial
merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a
guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties
which the Judge has to perform (Krishnan v. Krishnaveni). A miscarriage of justice
may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the
innocent. If unmerited acquittals become the general rule they tend to lead to a cynical
disregard of the law which was said in the case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra4 / Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa 5. A criminal trial is meant to do
justice to three entities, namely, the victim, the accused and the society at large.
Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Administration)6.

Public interest demands that criminal justice is swift and sure, that the guilty is
punished and the innocent is absolved in a 'fair and impartial trial' while events are
still fresh in the public mind as said in M.S.Sheriff v. State of Madras 7. One of the
cardinal principles which should always be kept in mind in our system of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is
presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by the competent criminal court. Another
golden thread that runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases
3
T.H. Hussain v. M.P. Modkakar 1958 AIR 376 1958 SCR 1226
4
1973 AIR 2622
5
2002 SCC (8) 381
6
(2000) 2 SCC 646.
7
AIR 1954 SC 397
 10

is that if two views are possible on the evidence in the case -one pointing to the guilt
of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the
accused is to be accepted as said by the Hon’ble court in Nishar Ali v. State of U.P.8

Kaliram v. State of Himachal Pradesh9 and F Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar10. The
above proposition is founded on the principle that the benefit of the doubt should
always be extended to the accused and not to the prosecution. That is why in cases
where the Court has no concrete evidence before it to record a conviction against the
accused and the Court only entertains a suspicion that the accused may be the culprit,
the Court will not convict the accused but would give him the benefit of doubt. In
such a case, it could also be said that the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal trial the burden to prove the case
alleged against the accused, (except where there is a departure made in a given
statute) is always on the prosecution and the judicially settled yardstick to discharge
the said burden is by proof beyond reasonable doubt. But these are not the criteria
adopted by the media. For the journalist, mere suspicion or hearsay evidence or
alleged confession by the so called accused to the police (which is inadmissible in
evidence except in cases covered by Section 162 (2) Cr.P.C.) are more than sufficient
materials to bolster up a 'scoop' and serve it to the unsuspecting public as a "breaking
news". Such a stuff will not stand the scrutiny before a criminal Court.

Of the several principles upon which crime jurisprudence is premised, the

presumption of innocence is one of the most endeared – Ei incumbit probation qui
dicit, non qui negat (translated in English thus: 'Proof lies on him who asserts, not on
him who denies').

Simply put, the principle of presumption of innocence means that every person
accused of any offence is presumed to be innocent and evidence must negative all
reasonable doubts which support her innocence; nothing else will make a case which
the defendant need meet. In other words, this presumption is a legal fiction which acts
as an instrument of proof in favour of an accused whose innocence is accepted and
recognised until sufficient evidence is introduced to overcome the presumption which
the law has created. The burden of establishing the guilt of an accused rests strictly on
the person who asserts it.

8
AIR 1957 SC 366.
9
AIR 1973 SC 2773
10
(1983) 2 SCC 32
 11

The principle of presumption of innocence has been accorded the status of an

inalienable right in most countries, including both civil as well as common law
countries. In addition, the principle is internationally recognised and finds mention in
several international documents – Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and Article 66 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – in
addition to several regional-international and national legal documents.

As regards India, the presumption of innocence doctrine is a well-entrenched criminal

law principle.
The Basis of the Principal: --
The following, which comprise the basis of such presumption, also highlight its
inalienability:
a) The first is the general rule of policy and sense, that all persons in general shall be
assumed to be good, honest and free from any kind of blame.

b) Next, the principle has peculiarly important functions, that of warning the human
judge, the common man and of course the media to exercise abundant caution and
against being misled by suspicion, conjecture and mere appearances, all of which may
inflict irreparable damage on the person of an innocent. The principle cautions against
trial upon prejudice and mandates conviction only upon unimpeachable legal
evidence.

c) Finally, it also highlights the dreadful consequences of the 'might of the state'
operating heavily against an insignificant individual pitted against it, especially in the
absence of an emphatic rule of law upon the subject.

There have been many landmark cases related to the contempt of the court. A few of
them are listed below:

The famous case of K.M. Nanavati11, which is over half a century old but yet
continues to be a favourite amongst aspiring law students was a classic example of a
media trial. Russi Karanjia, the editor of Blitz, a Bombay-based tabloid (as it was
then), had vociferously developed positive public opinion in favour of the accused
and in fact, portrayed the victim to be the actual villain in this episode of murder, so

11
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605
 12

much so that it actually influenced the jury members in the trial to find the accused
not guilty! However, this verdict was eventually rejected and the Bombay High Court
subsequently found the accused guilty and convicted him, which conviction was
upheld by the Supreme Court.

In the case of In re P.C. Sen, 1968, a special leave petition had been filed that a
broadcast that had taken place on the night of November 25 1965, on an All-India
Radio station had been obstructive in the course of justice and had amounted to
contempt of court as it gave out the details of the accused. Justice Shah stated that any
law related to the contempt of the court is well-settled. Any act that is done or
published to bring any Jude or the court to the ambit
of contempt or which tries to bring down the authority of the court of that anything
that tries to interfere with the proceedings of the law will be termed as contempt of
court.

In the case of Y.V. Hanumantha Rao v. K.R. Pattabhiram and Anr, 1973 12, there was a
curfew that had been imposed in a small district of Andhra Pradesh. It was brought
before the court that the curfew that was imposed was arbitrary and that there was no
law upholding the same. During this time, while the case was pending, the “Deccan
Chronicles” had published about the law of curfew and why it was imposed along
with its historical background and stated everything about the case. It was then it was
observed that, when a litigation was pending in the court of law, there shall be no
comments made regarding that litigation which may cause substantial danger of
prejudice of any trial, for instance, the prejudice in the decisions given by the judge,
the witness or any other general public having access to such media news. It was also
stated in this case that, even if a person who publishes such news believes in his or her
capacity for it to be true, it shall still stand as contempt of the court for the reason that
this truth was established before the verdict given by the judiciary.

In the case of Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration and Ors.) 13 there was
little evidence that the accused had murdered his partner. However, while the case was
still pending in the court, the media had started portraying the accused as a murderer
and was capable of changing the views of the public even before the decision of the
case. It held by the High Court of Delhi that the conviction of any person would
solely be based on the facts of the case and not because the media wanted the person
12
AIR 1975 AP30

13
(1996) 6 SCC 508
 13

to be declared as guilty. The charges also have to be framed against the person
accused based on the evidence available on record and not based on what the media
portrays the person to be.

A free Press does not necessarily connote a licence without any restriction
whatsoever. While reaching the information to the general public the media has a duty
to ensure that such information is accurate and does not impinge upon the rights of
others. Those who treasure the liberty of speech and expression should recall that the
said liberty is constitutionally hedged in by the limits laid down in Article 19 (2) of
the Constitution of India. Those limits flow, inter alia, from -
a) the right to reputation
b) the right to privacy (decency and morality)
c) the law of contempt of Court etc.
Thus, if any person (including the Press) while criticizing another, indulges in libel or
slander, he will be answerable in law for such offense both under civil as well
criminal law. Likewise, under the guise of freedom of speech and expression, no
agency is entitled to pry into the privacy of individuals and publish the same .
 14

1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The recent trend of ‘Media Trial’ has led to situations where individuals accused of
committing offenses are subjected to public scrutiny and judgment by journalists and
self-proclaimed ‘experts’ even before the legal process takes its course. More often
than not, such trials result in the tarnishing of the accused’s character, irrespective of
the final judicial outcome. In today’s competitive media landscape, the relentless
pursuit of higher viewership and TRP (Television Rating Points) has significantly
influenced the way news is reported, often prioritizing sensationalism over factual
accuracy and ethical journalism. This shift has had serious repercussions on the rights
of the accused, particularly in criminal cases, where media narratives create a biased
perception that undermines the fundamental principle of ‘innocent until proven
guilty.’ Consequently, this phenomenon severely compromises the accused’s right to a
fair trial, which is an essential component of the justice system.

The present study aims to analyse the constitutional validity of media trials and assess
their impact on the rights of the accused. The core problem statement can be outlined
as follows:
 To examine the constitutional validity of media trials in India and their alignment
with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
 To evaluate the extent to which media trials infringe upon the legal rights of the
accused, including the presumption of innocence, the right to privacy, and the
right to a fair trial.
 To explore judicial precedents and legal frameworks that regulate media conduct
in ongoing trials and their effectiveness in ensuring unbiased reporting.
This study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the intersection
between media freedom and the accused’s rights, highlighting the need for a
balanced approach to uphold both journalistic integrity and the principles of
justice.
 15

1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION-

a. To determine the constitutional validity of media trials.

b. To highlight the privacy rights of the accused in criminal prosecution

c. To highlight the violation of such rights in recent days due to media activism. (Audi
alteram partem, presumption of innocence, fair trial, privacy)

d. To highlight the problems of media trial in contemporary society. (public peace,

contempt of court, defamation, attack on judicial machinery)

e. To provide a firm suggestion regarding the drawbacks of media trial.

1.3 HYPOTHESIS

1. Media does not abuse Article 19(1)(a).

Responsible media upholds transparency and accountability without interfering in
judicial processes. Ethical journalism strengthens democracy while respecting fair
trial rights.

2. Media abuses Article 19(1)(a).

Sensationalized reporting and media trials violate the presumption of innocence,
influence public perception, and compromise judicial integrity.

3. Impact of media trials on accused rights.

Media overreach undermines the right to a fair trial (Article 21), privacy, and due
process. Biased narratives can lead to social stigma and undue judicial pressure,
affecting justice delivery.
 16

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

 To highlight the privacy rights of the accused in criminal prosecution and its
violation in recent days due to media activism.
 To highlight the problems of media trial in contemporary society.
 To determine the constitutional validity of media trials.

1.5 METHODOLOGY

 The methodology adopted for the purpose of conducting research on this paper is
purely doctrinal. This data has been collected from various constitutional law
books, media law books, articles and other primary sources like treaties, reports,
etc. It is purely an interpretive and analytical study.

1.6 SCOPE

 In India the constitution provides to accuse persons various rights and also under
section 57 of CRPC various rights of the accused are given importance however
this paper aims to study only those rights that are hampered during the media trials
namely Right to privacy, Right to legal aid right to fair trial also only people
accuse in criminal prosecution cases are the prime focus of study to research the
paper would focus on determining the privacy rights of the queues person and
then analyze how the media trial impacts the queues persons right to legal aid in a
fair trial.
 17

1.7 LITERATURE REVIEW

Media trials have become a significant concern in contemporary legal and journalistic
discourse, raising complex questions about their impact on fundamental rights such as
the presumption of innocence, privacy, and the right to a fair trial. The Indian
Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), but
this right is not absolute, as Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions to ensure
public order, decency, and the integrity of judicial proceedings. The judiciary has
consistently cautioned against the dangers of excessive media influence in ongoing
legal matters, as seen in landmark cases such as R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
(1994) and R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009), which emphasized that media
coverage should not interfere with legal proceedings or prejudice public perception. In
MP Lohia v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court specifically warned against pre-
trial media publications that could jeopardize the rights of the accused. Despite such
judicial precedents, the advent of digital media and 24/7 news cycles has led to an
increase in sensationalized and often speculative reporting, as seen in high-profile
cases like the Sushant Singh Rajput case, where intense media scrutiny influenced
public opinion and arguably undermined judicial impartiality.

Internationally, legal frameworks such as Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) emphasize the fundamental principle of "innocent until
proven guilty," reinforcing the necessity of fair and impartial trials. Countries like the
United Kingdom and the United States have implemented strict contempt of court
laws to prevent media from unduly influencing judicial outcomes, thereby
maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights
has also recognized the potential risks of media interference in justice administration,
advocating for a balanced approach that ensures both freedom of the press and fair
trial rights.

Legal scholars such as H.L.A. Hart and Soli Sorabjee have extensively debated the
role of media in a democratic society, highlighting the need for ethical journalism that
informs the public without compromising justice. They argue that while media plays a
vital role in fostering transparency and accountability, unchecked media trials can
distort facts, create bias, and ultimately threaten the credibility of judicial institutions.
The emergence of social media platforms has further complicated this issue, as
unverified information and public outrage often influence perceptions even before a
formal trial takes place. In this context, the principle of due process is often
overlooked, leading to instances where individuals are declared guilty by public
opinion long before judicial verdicts are delivered.
 18

To address these concerns, it is crucial to implement stronger regulatory frameworks

that prevent media from crossing ethical boundaries while reporting on legal matters.
Strengthening contempt laws, enforcing privacy protections, and establishing clear
guidelines for responsible journalism can help mitigate the risks associated with trial
by media. Moreover, judicial bodies and media regulatory authorities should
collaborate to ensure that reporting remains fair, unbiased, and respectful of legal
proceedings. Educating journalists about the ethical implications of legal reporting
and promoting media literacy among the public can also serve as effective measures
in curbing the negative effects of sensationalized trials. Given the increasing influence
of media in shaping public discourse, it is imperative to strike a delicate balance
between press freedom and judicial integrity to preserve the core principles of justice
and democracy.
 19

CHAPTER 2: CONCEPT OF TRIAL BY MEDIA AND

ITS LEGAL IMPLICATION

2.1 MEANING OF MEDIA TRAIL

The expression "trial by media" itself is a misnomer. The word "trial" has not been
defined either by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908("C.P.C." for short) or the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short) which are the basic statutes governing
the trial of civil and criminal cases by the respective courts in India. Black's Law
Dictionary (9th Edition) gives the word "trial" the following meaning: -

"a formal judicial examination of evidence and determination of legal claims in an

adversary proceeding".

Sec. 2(7) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 defines the word "trial" as under:

"trial means any hearing before the Court at which evidence is taken".

The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, ensuring

that an accused is deemed innocent until proven guilty. However, the rise of media
trials has significantly compromised this principle, often leading to public prejudice,
character assassination, and infringement of fundamental rights. While media plays a
crucial role in shaping public opinion and ensuring accountability, it must function
within the boundaries of constitutional and legal frameworks. The unchecked
sensationalism of media houses in pursuit of higher TRPs (Television Rating Points)
has resulted in biased reporting, violating the accused’s right to privacy, reputation,
and fair trial.

Thus, "trial" ordinarily means a proceeding before a Court of justice. If so, there
cannot be a trial by the media. But these words are often used to denote an exercise
undertaken by the media virtually taking up the role of a judicial forum for which
such exercise has been earmarked by the laws of the land. The Supreme Court of
India has had occasion to note the consequence of "trial by media" in the following
words: - The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by
creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law.
During high publicity cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere
of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial impossible but
means that regardless of the result of the trial, in public perception the accused is
already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life without intense
public scrutiny"14.

14
para 293 of R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106.
 20

In State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, the Apex Court observed as

follows:

"A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of the rule of
law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice".

2.2 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND ITS COMPROMISE BY

MEDIA TRIALS

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty,
which includes the right to a fair and speedy trial. A fair trial serves two primary
objectives—it must be fair not only to the accused but also to the prosecution. 15 The
judiciary in the case Krishnan v. Krishnaveni 16 reiterated that a judge’s duty is not
only to prevent wrongful convictions but also to ensure that the guilty do not escape
punishment. Justice must be balanced to serve three entities—the victim, the accused,
and society at large 17.

However, media trials often prejudge an accused person’s guilt, creating a hostile
environment even before legal proceedings commence. Sensationalized coverage
leads to public perception being shaped by narratives that may not align with legal
facts, thereby compromising the fundamental principles of justice. The miscarriage of
justice caused by either wrongful convictions or unmerited acquittals weakens public
trust in the judicial system, making it difficult for courts to function independently
and fairly.

Furthermore, the need for swift and impartial justice is fundamental to upholding the
rule of law, yet media trials distort this process by prioritizing commercial interests
and sensationalizing criminal cases for higher viewership. By publicizing unverified
claims, misrepresenting facts, and conducting parallel investigations, the media plays
a significant role in influencing public sentiment, often turning legal proceedings into
spectacles rather than fair adjudications. The accused, who should be presumed
innocent until proven guilty, is often subjected to character assassination and social
ostracization, making a fair trial nearly impossible. Moreover, such media influence
not only pressures the judiciary but also impacts witnesses, lawyers, and law
enforcement agencies, further complicating the legal process.

15
T.H. Hussain v. M.P. Modakhar, AIR 1958 SC 376
16
(1997) 4 SCC 241.
17
Ambika Prasad v. State (Delhi Administration) 2000 CriLJ 4083
 21

While freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy, it must not infringe upon
the rights of individuals to a just and impartial trial. The challenge lies in striking a
balance between media freedom and judicial independence to prevent the erosion of
public faith in the legal system as said in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra18 and Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa. The need for swift and
impartial justice is yet fundamental, media trials distort this process by
sensationalizing criminal cases for commercial gain.

2.3 IMPACT OF MEDIA TRIALS VIS-A -VIS FREEDOM OF

SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, as enshrined in Article

19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, lies at the core of individual identity and
collective democratic discourse. This right enables individuals to express their
opinions freely and fosters public debate, which is essential for a vibrant democracy.
However, the Indian Constitution does not explicitly recognize "freedom of the
media" as a separate fundamental right. Unlike the constitutions of some other
countries, which provide a specific guarantee of press freedom, India’s media freedom
is derived from the broader right to freedom of speech and expression.

The judicial interpretation of this right has, over time, strengthened press freedom. As
early as Ramesh Thapar v. State of Madras 19, the Supreme Court recognized that
freedom of the press is an essential component of freedom of speech and expression.
The judiciary has progressively enforced and acknowledged this right, reinforcing the
media’s crucial role in a democratic society.

With this gradual recognition, the media has evolved into the backbone of the news
industry, playing a vital role as the public’s eyes and ears. Today, almost every piece
of information that reaches the public is filtered through media platforms, which
shape public opinion on current events, governance, and justice. However, this
monopoly over information dissemination raises serious concerns about the
authenticity, objectivity, and credibility of news reports.

18
(1973) 2 SCC 793
19
AIR 1950 SC 124
 22

In a society where people inherently trust authoritative sources, the public often relies
on media narratives to understand legal proceedings and social issues. But what
happens when the information disseminated by the media contradicts the actual
judicial process? The disparity between media narratives and judicial outcomes can
lead to public confusion, misinformation, and loss of faith in the legal system. This
gap highlights the urgent need for responsible journalism, where media coverage
aligns with ethical standards and factual accuracy rather than sensationalism and
speculation.

As the media wields significant influence, it must balance its right to free expression
with journalistic integrity, accountability, and respect for judicial processes. Without
such checks, trial by media and misinformation can distort reality, prejudice legal
proceedings, and undermine the very essence of democracy.
In this context, there is a minimal yet essential expectation that the media should
operate within its ethical and legal boundaries, ensuring that the information it
conveys is free from bias and speculation. However, in recent years, the media has not
only overstepped its limits but has also begun to assume the role of the judiciary,
pronouncing judgments even before the courts have had the opportunity to deliberate
on a case.

Under the guise of freedom of speech and expression, media outlets often take it upon
themselves to investigate cases of public interest, conducting their own parallel
inquiries, questioning witnesses, and casting aspersions on the character and morality
of the accused. In some instances, the media goes even further, deliberately
influencing public opinion and pressuring authorities to act in a particular manner.
This overreach not only compromises the fundamental right to a fair trial but also
dilutes the sanctity of the judicial process.

In extreme cases, media trials have even driven cases to a premature conclusion,
shaping public perception in such a way that judicial impartiality is threatened. This
practice undermines the principles of justice, as it creates a biased narrative, often
based on incomplete or misleading information. It is, therefore, imperative that the
media exercises responsible journalism, respecting the due process of law and
ensuring that its reportage remains fact-based, balanced, and within constitutional
limits.
 23

While the public may appear content with this media-driven cycle of judgment, it is
important to recognize that such practices are legally untenable and fundamentally
violate the core principles of criminal jurisprudence. The doctrines of "presumption of
innocence until proven guilty" and "proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt" form the
bedrock of a fair trial. However, media interference often prejudices public
perception, portraying the accused as guilty even before the trial has begun. This
undue influence not only compromises the accused’s right to a fair trial but also
undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

Even in cases where the accused is acquitted, the damage inflicted by media
narratives remains irreversible. The public’s perception of guilt, shaped by biased
reporting, rarely changes, leading to lasting social stigma and reputational harm. This
results in a form of double victimization—first by the media’s premature conviction in
the court of public opinion and second by the prolonged judicial ordeal the accused
must endure. Such reckless media trials not only jeopardize individual rights but also
erode public faith in the justice system, making it imperative for the media to exercise
greater responsibility and restraint in legal reporting.

Cases that are driven by the media usually involve high publicity coupled with well-
staged drama and has targeted at cases that could be sensational due to their
horrendous nature or due to the involvement of influential person. This is becoming a
trend and seems to have substituted the lack of daily soaps and news channels. A few
media-driven cases in the recent past include the Arushi murder case Jessica Lal
murder case BMW accident case Nirbhaya rape case Nora Radia case.

In MP Lohia v. State of West Bengal20, the Supreme Court cautioned the media
against publishing prejudicial content, emphasizing that such reporting could
compromise the fairness of a trial. This principle was further reinforced in the case of
State v. Mohammad Afzal and Others 21, where the Court reiterated the need for media
restraint in matters that could influence judicial proceedings.

In the landmark judgment of Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. Emil Vadhavan 22, the Supreme
Court observed that the method by which evidence is obtained is not always relevant,
meaning that evidence collected through sting operations may be admissible in court,
20
Appeal (Crl.) 219 of 2005
21
(2003) 107 DLT 385 (DB)
22
1987 AIR 1748, 1987 SCR (3) 46
 24

albeit with certain limitations. The Court clarified that confessions made during such
operations can be considered extrajudicial confessions under the Indian Evidence Act,
provided they were made voluntarily and without coercion or inducement. However,
confessions made in police custody are inadmissible, as they raise concerns about
possible coercion and undue influence.

Additionally, in State of Maharashtra v. Jalgaon Municipal Council 23, the Apex Court
held that an accused cannot be convicted merely based on public or media opinion.
While the press has the right to report on court proceedings, this right is not absolute
and is subject to two key limitations:

1. It must not amount to contempt of court.

2. It must not prejudice the accused or interfere with the judicial process.

Similarly, in Rao Harnarain v. Gumori Ram 24, the Punjab High Court ruled that
the “Liberty of the press is subordinate to the administration of justice. The plain
duty of a journalist is the reporting and not the adjudication of cases.” This
judgment serves as a crucial reminder that while the media plays an important role
in informing the public, it must do so without compromising the fundamental
principles of justice and fair trial.

23
(2003) 9 SCC 731
24
AIR 1958 Punjab 273
 25

CHAPTER 3: RIGHT OF ACCUSED AND FREEDOM OF

PRESS
3.1 PRIVACY AND RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN INDIA

Privacy, in its intrinsic sense, is a fundamental human value that is closely linked to
human dignity, as well as other essential freedoms such as the freedom of association
and freedom of speech. Despite its importance, India does not have a dedicated statute
solely protecting the right to privacy. Instead, this right is deemed to be an inherent
part of the Constitution, primarily under Articles 19 and 21, which guarantee freedom
of expression and protection of life and personal liberty, respectively.

The origins of the right to privacy in Indian jurisprudence can be traced back to the
British era in the 1800s. However, privacy rights were not fundamentally granted to
Indian citizens during that time. In the landmark case of M.P. Sharma v. Satish
Chandra25, the Supreme Court of India held that privacy was not a fundamental right.
A similar stance was reaffirmed in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. 26, where the Court
ruled that the right to privacy was not explicitly recognized under the Constitution.
However, the post-liberalization era saw a significant shift in privacy jurisprudence,
with courts gradually recognizing its importance.

A major breakthrough occurred in the R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 27 , also

known as the ‘Auto Shankar’ case, where the Supreme Court granted constitutional
status to the right to privacy. Over time, privacy became an essential aspect of
fundamental rights jurisprudence, allowing individuals to lead a dignified life free
from unwarranted surveillance. The landmark Puttaswamy judgment 28 further
solidified privacy as a fundamental right, reinforcing its role in India’s democratic
framework.

With the rapid expansion of television and the internet, the right to privacy has come
under severe threat. The rise of media activism has led to the troubling trend of media
trials, where media houses conduct parallel investigations, often exceeding their legal
scope. In many instances, media trials involve so-called ‘experts’ delivering

25
AIR 1954 SC 300, 1954 SCR 1077
26
AIR 1963 SC 1295, 1963 (2) SCR 762
27
(1994) 6 SCC 632, AIR 1995 SC 264
28
(2017) 10 SCC 1
 26

judgments, thereby compromising the rights of the accused and undermining the
principle of a fair trial.
The Indian Constitution, rooted in democratic principles and the rule of law, provides
several protections for the accused.
 Presumption of Innocence: One of the most fundamental principles in criminal
jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence—which states that an accused
person is innocent until proven guilty. However, media trials frequently disregard
this principle, as media houses speculate on cases, influencing public perception
and often pronouncing judgments before the courts.
 Right to bail: Such biased reporting has a direct impact on the accused’s legal
rights, including the right to bail in cases of arrest without a warrant. The law
mandates that the accused must be informed of their entitlement to bail upon
payment of surety.
 Right to be taken before the Magistrate without any delay: The accused must be
presented before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
 Right to a free, fair, and speedy trial,
 Right to consult a legal practitioner,
 Right to free legal aid
 Right to privacy and protection against unlawful searches: the Indian criminal law
provides that police cannot violate the privacy of the accused on a mere
presumption of offense.

Despite legal protections, media trials often infringe upon an accused person’s right to
privacy. Indian criminal law explicitly states that law enforcement authorities cannot
violate an individual's privacy based on mere presumptions of guilt. However, in the
age of 24/7 news cycles, the accused is often subjected to intense public scrutiny,
which may involve invasive reporting and character assassination. These unethical
practices not only compromise due process but also undermine the very foundation of
a fair justice system.

To protect the rights of the accused, media houses must exercise ethical journalism
and ensure that their coverage remains responsible and within legal boundaries. Media
must function as the fourth pillar of democracy, upholding transparency without
interfering in judicial proceedings. Failing to do so endangers the principles of justice,
fairness, and individual dignity, making it crucial to strike a balance between press
freedom and the right to privacy.

The media has now evolved into a Janta Adalat (People’s Court), often interfering in
judicial proceedings to such an extent that it delivers its own judgments even before
the court does. In doing so, it completely disregards the fundamental legal principle of
 27

‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ and the standard of ‘guilt beyond
reasonable doubt’.
In recent times, there has been a growing trend of media trials, where media houses
conduct their independent inquiries, often shaping public opinion against the accused
before the case is even formally acknowledged by the court. This prejudiced reporting
influences public perception and creates a bias that can have severe consequences,
sometimes leading to a situation where an innocent person is presumed guilty even
before a fair trial is conducted. Such interference not only jeopardizes the accused’s
rights but also undermines the credibility and impartiality of the judicial process.

3.2 MEDIA FREEDOM IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT

India has a vibrant and diverse media landscape, spanning newspapers, television
channels, and digital platforms. Over the decades, the press has played an
instrumental role in shaping public discourse, uncovering corruption, and acting as the
watchdog of democracy. From the pre-independence era, when newspapers played a
key role in the freedom movement, to contemporary times, where investigative
journalism has exposed high-profile scams, the Indian media has significantly
influenced the country's political and social narrative. However, with this influence
comes responsibility.

Despite being a democracy, India has witnessed instances where media freedom has
been curtailed, either through censorship, government control, or corporate influence.
The Emergency of 1975-77 remains a dark chapter in Indian history, where press
censorship was imposed, and newspapers were forced to toe the government line.
Even in the present digital era, concerns about government regulations, politically
motivated reporting, and restrictions on journalists raise questions about the extent to
which media freedom is protected.

3.3 CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF FREE MEDIA

A free and independent media is a cornerstone of any democratic society, playing a
crucial role in fostering transparency, accountability, and an informed citizenry. In
India, the freedom of the press is derived from the broader right to freedom of speech
and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This ensures that media can
function independently, without undue government interference, and report on matters
of public interest. However, this right is not absolute. Article 19(2) imposes
reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of
India, public order, morality, defamation, contempt of court, and incitement to an
offense. These limitations highlight the necessity of balancing press freedom with
responsible journalism.

3.4 CHALLENGES POSED BY FREE MEDIA IN INDIA

 28

While the media is expected to report objectively and without bias, sensationalism,
trial by media, misinformation, and invasion of privacy have become growing
concerns. In high-profile criminal cases, media trials often influence public perception
even before judicial proceedings conclude, undermining the principle of presumption
of innocence and the right to a fair trial. In many cases, irresponsible reporting has led
to social unrest, character assassination, and reputational damage, especially in the
digital age, where unverified news spreads rapidly.

The rise of social media and digital news platforms has further complicated the media
landscape. Unlike traditional print and television journalism, digital media operates
with minimal regulation, leading to the proliferation of fake news, propaganda, and
clickbait journalism. This creates an urgent need for ethical journalism and a well-
defined legal framework to curb media excesses without infringing on press freedom.

3.5 STRIKING A BALANCE: THE WAY FORWARD

India’s legal framework already provides for certain checks on media freedom
through laws such as the Contempt of Courts Act, Defamation Laws, and IT Rules to
prevent misuse of journalistic privileges. However, stricter enforcement of ethical
journalism practices is necessary to ensure that media operates within the bounds of
fairness and responsibility.

 Stronger Media Regulations: A regulatory body with independent oversight could

help prevent the misuse of press freedom while ensuring that journalism remains
free and fair.
 Responsible Reporting: Journalistic ethics and editorial accountability must be
reinforced to prevent misinformation and sensationalism.
 Legal Safeguards: While imposing restrictions on press freedom, care must be
taken to ensure that such measures do not stifle dissent or suppress inconvenient
truths.
 Public Awareness: Citizens should be educated about media literacy to critically
assess the news they consume and differentiate between factual reporting and
propaganda

i. Freedom of Press

In a democratic country like India, the right to freedom of speech and

expression is fundamental. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution
guarantees this right to all citizens. While freedom of the press is not explicitly
mentioned as a separate right—unlike in the United States—the Supreme
Court of India has recognized it as an essential component of the right to
freedom of speech and expression.
 29

A free press plays a crucial role in a democracy, as it ensures the right to

receive and impart information. Without this, democracy would lose its
essence and become an empty slogan. However, this right is not absolute and
is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which includes
limitations such as defamation, contempt of court, public order, decency,
and morality.

Furthermore, the right under Article 19(1)(a) encompasses both the right to
information and the right to disseminate it through all forms of media,
including print, electronic, and digital platforms. While the media enjoys
considerable freedom in reporting and shaping public discourse, it must
exercise this power responsibly, ensuring that it does not infringe upon the
rights of individuals or compromise the integrity of judicial proceedings.

“I would rather have a completely free press with all the dangers involved in
the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated dress”

- Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru

But he did not focus the danger involved as he did not assume the media to get
involved into something that is beyond its limits and ethics which further
hinders the administration of Justice which is very essence of natural justice
and the rule of law.

In Harijai Singh and others vs Vinay Kumar and others29, the Supreme Court
of India decided the possibility of the freedom of the press acknowledged it as
a crucial requirement of a democratic form of government and considered it as
the mother of all other rights and democracy in Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs
Union of India30 the Supreme Court said that the media trial or trial initiated
because of the public anticipation are in the contrast to the role of law as they
can lead to the breakdown of justice.

ii. Immunity unread the Contempt of court act, 1971

Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, pre-trial publications are protected
from contempt proceedings. According to the Act, any publication that
obstructs or tends to obstruct the course of justice in a pending civil or
criminal case may constitute contempt of court. However, this protection
applies only when the case is actively pending before the judiciary.

29
(1996) 6 SCC 466
30
1996 (6) SCC 354
 30

Taking advantage of this legal immunity, media coverage in the Aarushi

Talwar case crossed ethical boundaries by speculating and making allegations
against the Talwar couple even before any arrests were made. The excessive
and often sensationalized reporting influenced public perception and created a
biased narrative, disregarding the principles of fair trial and presumption of
innocence.

Due to such legal loopholes, the media often enjoys a free hand in producing
dramatic and speculative stories without being held immediately accountable
for the consequences of their reporting. This unchecked media activism raises
serious concerns about trial by media, where journalistic freedom is misused
to pronounce judgments before the court does, potentially compromising the
integrity of the legal process.

iii. The public’s right to know

The Supreme Court, in A.G. vs Times Newspaper31, emphasized that the

freedom of the press is rooted in the people's right to know. It held that the
press plays a vital role in disseminating complete and unbiased information
about the country’s political, social, economic, and cultural affairs. The court
also recognized the media’s educative role in shaping public opinion and
promoting informed debate.

However, the then Chief Justice of India noted that while newspapers must
provide accurate and reliable news, they cannot function merely as official
gazettes. He acknowledged that some level of entertainment and sensation is
natural in journalism but cautioned that it should not come at the cost of truth
and responsibility. The judgment underscored the need for ethical reporting
and the importance of maintaining journalistic integrity.

iv. Public participation

Some researchers have justified trial by media by arguing that public opinion
exists independently and is not solely shaped by media influence. They believe
that the media merely articulates viewpoints that the public already holds 32. In
a democracy, transparency is essential, and a free press plays a crucial role in
ensuring openness in judicial proceedings. Without an independent media,
society risks reverting to an era where legal proceedings were conducted in
secrecy, limiting public awareness and accountability.

31
[1974] AC 273 (HL)
32
Navajyoti Samanta, trial by media Jessica Lal case available on https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1003644, browsed on 28th February, 2025
 31

Additionally, media-led initiatives such as SMS campaigns and public polls

provide a platform for citizens to express their views. These tools encourage
public discourse on matters of significant concern, fostering a more informed
and engaged society. By facilitating discussions on legal and social issues, the
media contributes to a participatory democracy where people can voice their
perspectives and demand accountability from institutions.
 32

CHAPTER- 4: PROS AND CONS OF MEDIA TRAIL

4.1 Media Trials: A Double-Edged Sword

Media trials play a dual role in society, offering both benefits and challenges. On one
hand, they promote transparency by bringing legal cases into public discourse,
ensuring accountability, and sometimes expediting justice through heightened
scrutiny. However, they also pose significant risks by compromising the presumption
of innocence, influencing judicial outcomes, and invading privacy. Sensationalized
reporting can distort facts, leading to misinformation and undue public pressure on the
judiciary. While media freedom is essential in a democracy, responsible journalism,
and legal safeguards are necessary to prevent prejudicial reporting and protect the
integrity of the judicial process.
Media trials play a significant role in increasing public awareness by bringing critical
legal cases into the spotlight, fostering civic engagement, and encouraging informed
discussions. They also ensure accountability by exposing corruption, injustice, and
systemic failures through investigative journalism, often leading to necessary legal
and policy reforms. Additionally, extensive media coverage can accelerate the judicial
process, as public pressure compels authorities to act swiftly in high-profile cases. By
shedding light on important issues, media trials contribute to a more transparent and
responsive legal system.
Media plays a vital role in a democratic society by acting as a bridge between the
government, judiciary, and the people. It serves as a watchdog, uncovering truths,
exposing injustices, and shaping public discourse on critical issues. Over the years,
the role of the media has evolved significantly, moving beyond mere reporting to
investigative journalism and, at times, influencing legal proceedings. This
phenomenon, commonly referred to as a "media trial," occurs when the media
extensively covers legal cases, often shaping public perception before the court
delivers its judgment. While media trials can be instrumental in bringing attention to
cases that might otherwise be overlooked, they also raise significant ethical and legal
concerns.
With the rise of electronic and digital media, the dissemination of information has
become instantaneous, allowing people to access news and updates in real time. High-
profile criminal cases, political scandals, and social injustices often become the
subject of intense media scrutiny, leading to widespread public debates. Supporters of
media trials argue that they promote transparency, ensure accountability, and expedite
 33

justice by pressuring authorities to act swiftly. By shedding light on cases that may
have been ignored due to political influence or corruption, the media plays a crucial
role in upholding democratic values.

However, media trials also pose serious risks, particularly when they interfere with
the due process of law. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is often
compromised when media houses sensationalize cases, presenting accused individuals
as guilty before a fair trial is conducted. This can lead to public bias, impacting the
judicial process and influencing the opinions of judges and jurors. Additionally,
excessive media coverage can result in character assassination, violating an
individual’s right to privacy and reputation. In some cases, it may even lead to
wrongful convictions or acquittals based on public sentiment rather than factual
evidence.
In a society where media holds immense power, it becomes crucial to strike a balance
between press freedom and responsible reporting. While the media plays an essential
role in keeping the public informed and ensuring justice is served, it must operate
within ethical and legal boundaries. A fair justice system requires that trials take place
in the courtroom rather than in the court of public opinion. The debate on media trials
remains ongoing, with advocates highlighting their necessity in a democratic
framework and critics warning against their potential to undermine judicial integrity.
Understanding the pros and cons of media trials is crucial in determining how media
can fulfil its role responsibly without jeopardizing the fundamental principles of
justice.

4.2 PROS OR BENEFITS OF MEDIA TRIAL

Cases like Jessica Lall and Nitish Katara murder cases, which are considered high
profile cases, do benefit from such non-stop media coverage. Neelam Katara, mother
of the deceased in the said murder case, succeeded in getting a judgment in her favor
from the lower courts due to the support of the media and public opinion.

In Praful Kumar Sinha v. State of Orissa33, a writ petition against sexual abuse of
blind girls in school was filed before the Supreme Court which was based on the
article published in a daily newspaper. Even though sexual abuse was difficult to
prove, the Apex court, on the basis report submitted, gave instructions to the
institution for proper management. In Sheela Barse v. Union of India34, the famous
journalist addressed the Chief Justice of India through a letter and made the Apex
court take notice of the terrible conditions of mentally challenged women locked up in
33
(1989) 2 JT 578 (SC)
34
(1986) 3 SCC 632
 34

the Presidency Jail, Calcutta. As a result, commissioners were appointed to investigate

and report the conditions of prisons where women and children were kept. The public
initiative generated in the Jessica Lall murder case compelled the Delhi Police to file
an appeal in the High Court against the acquittal of Manu Sharma by the Trial Court.
The sting operation done by NDTV telecasted showed, the prosecution witness, Sunil
Kulkarni, negotiating his witness for monetary considerations to bail out Sanjeev
Nanda, the accused in the hit-and-run case. In the Priyadarshani Matto murder case,
when after seven years of acquittal from the trial court, the Delhi High Court
convicted, the deceased father, Chaman Lal Mattoo, wrote in the Indian Express
newspaper, “I can’t thank the media enough. If it was not for the media, we would
have lost the spirit and the battle”35.

In D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal36, the Supreme Court took into notice the
happening of custodial violence after a letter was sent to the chief justice of India
drawing attention towards the newspaper reports regarding death in police lock-ups
and custody.

Today, because of this media activism, more Indians are aware of their constitutional
rights than ever before the role of the media in such cases is credible as the suppressed
and marginalized get access to justice in matters that have been concealed due to
gangster regimes. By adopting this activism, the media is simply exposing the rot
within our existing judicial system.

4.3 EVILS OR CONS OF MEDIA TRIAL

Media plays a vital role in a democratic society by acting as the fourth pillar, ensuring
transparency, holding authorities accountable, and providing the public with crucial
information. However, in recent years, the media has overstepped its ethical
boundaries and has taken up the role of a parallel judiciary through the phenomenon
known as “media trial.” The rise of sensationalism, competition for higher viewership
ratings, and the increasing influence of social media have led to the media assuming
the role of investigator, prosecutor, and judge, often pronouncing individuals guilty
even before the court delivers its verdict. This reckless practice has far-reaching
consequences, undermining the very foundations of the rule of law, the right to a fair
trial, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

35
Palash Kumar India media plays judge as justice system fails available on https://nalsar.ac.in/images/NMLR
%20Vol-1-2010.pdf browsed on 25 February, 2025
36
(1997) 1 SCC 416
 35

The concept of media trial is not new, but its impact has intensified in the digital era,
where news spreads rapidly, often without verification. High-profile cases such as the
Jessica Lal murder case, the Aarushi Talwar case, and the Sushant Singh Rajput case
exemplify how media narratives can shape public opinion, create biases, and even
influence judicial proceedings. The accused in such cases are subjected to relentless
scrutiny, character assassination, and public vilification, making it nearly impossible
for them to receive an impartial and fair trial. This uncontrolled media influence leads
to what is termed as "trial by media," wherein the media sensationalizes a case and
presents one-sided narratives, completely disregarding legal principles and judicial
discretion.
One of the most alarming consequences of media trials is their impact on the
fundamental rights of individuals, particularly the right to privacy and the right to a
fair trial. The presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, is
often disregarded when media houses project the accused as guilty even before the
court examines the evidence. In many instances, innocent individuals have faced
social ostracization, loss of employment, mental trauma, and even physical harm due
to the influence of prejudicial reporting. Additionally, victims and their families are
often subjected to invasive and insensitive coverage, further aggravating their
suffering.
Moreover, media trials compromise the integrity of judicial proceedings. Judges and
jurors, being human, cannot remain completely immune to public discourse and
media propaganda. Excessive media interference can create public pressure on the
judiciary, leading to a scenario where courts might be influenced by public sentiment
rather than relying strictly on evidence and legal principles. This not only weakens
public faith in the judicial system but also leads to a dangerous precedent where
media houses wield excessive power, undermining the separation of powers between
the judiciary, executive, and legislature.
The advent of social media has further exacerbated the problem. In the past,
traditional media outlets exercised some level of journalistic responsibility. However,
with social media platforms allowing anyone to share news and opinions instantly,
misinformation and half-truths spread like wildfire. Hashtag campaigns, public polls,
and viral trends have created an environment where public opinion is formed not
based on legal facts but on narratives designed to evoke strong emotions. This digital
mob justice has the potential to destroy lives and reputations irreversibly.
While media plays a crucial role in a democracy, it must function responsibly and
within ethical boundaries. Media trials erode fundamental legal principles, invade
personal privacy, and interfere with judicial independence. There is an urgent need for
stricter media regulations, ethical journalism practices, and public awareness to curb
the evils of media trials. If left unchecked, the uncontrolled power of the media can
transform democracy into mobocracy, where justice is determined not by courts but
by the loudest voices in the public sphere.
 36

Justice Katju and P. Sainath the media, in its quest for sensationalism, often distorts
facts and prejudice’s public opinion, which can lead to miscarriages of justice.
According to him, the role of the media should be to report facts responsibly rather
than act as a parallel court. They have also expressed concerns over the
corporatization and sensationalism of media, particularly in legal matters. He argues
that media trials prioritize TRPs over truth, shifting focus from critical issues such as
poverty, farmer distress, and systemic corruption to high-profile criminal cases that
generate more viewership. Sainath believes that responsible journalism should serve
the public interest rather than act as a tool for corporate or political agendas 37.

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, a former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, has been
critical of media trials, emphasizing that they undermine the judicial process and
violate the principle of natural justice. He believes that when the media takes on the
role of judge, jury, and executioner, it not only prejudices public opinion but also puts
undue pressure on the judiciary and law enforcement agencies.
Justice Reddy has pointed out that sensationalized reporting often leads to
misinformation, damaging the reputation of individuals even before a fair trial is
conducted. He has warned that media trials can result in mob justice, where people
form opinions based on incomplete or biased narratives rather than legal facts.
According to him, the media should focus on fair and ethical reporting rather than
influencing judicial proceedings, ensuring that justice is delivered through proper
legal channels.

i. Right to Free Trail Compromised

The Indian criminal justice system is based on the two mantras; ‘guilt to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt’ and presumption of innocence until proven guilty 38. Every
person has the right to a free and fair trial, a fundamental principle of justice. This
right is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In T. Nagappa v. Y.R.
Mulridhar39, the Supreme Court said an accused has a right to a fair trial. He has a
right to defend himself as a part of his human and a fundamental right. Right to fair
trial includes the right to be tried by an unbiased judge. Sensational journalism has an
impact on the functioning of the judiciary. For example, a trial by the media began
almost instantly after Afzal’s arrest in the Indian Parliament attack case 40. A week
after the attack, in a press conference called by the police, Afzal surrendered himself
in front of the national media. The media played an extremely negative role in
influencing the public integrity before Afzal was even tried. This can be established
37
P.Sainath lost the compass rural India is a giant canvas that is begging the media to do a portrait
https://www.outlookindia.com/author/p-sainath-2
38
Article 14 para 2 and seven of the international convention on civil and political rights 1966
39
(2008) 5 SCC 633
40
State of N.C.T. of Delhi vs Navjot Sandhu @ Afzal Guru AIR 2005 SC 3820
 37

by the observations of Justice P. Venkataraman Reddy’s decision to uphold the death

penalty of Mohammad Afzal. SAR Jilani, one of Afzal’s Co-defendants in the
parliament’s attack case, was primarily sentenced to death for his alleged participation
in the attack even though there was a lack of evidence. The prosecution’s case against
him was based on a lone telephonic conversation between Jelani and his brother, the
media portrayed him as a dangerous and trained terrorist. On appeal, the Delhi High
Court overturned Jelani’s conviction.
ii. Infringement of Right to Privacy

Media trials often lead to the infringement of the right to privacy, a fundamental right
protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In high-profile cases, excessive
media scrutiny exposes the personal lives of the accused, victims, and even their
families, often without consent. Sensationalized reporting can result in public
shaming, character assassination, and emotional distress, even before a court delivers
its verdict. The media’s relentless pursuit of exclusive details frequently disregards an
individual’s dignity, leading to long-term reputational damage, even if the person is
later acquitted. While freedom of the press (Article 19(1)(a)) is essential for
democracy, it must be exercised responsibly and balanced against an individual's right
to privacy and fair trial. Courts have emphasized that unrestricted media coverage
should not violate personal dignity, confidentiality, or the sanctity of legal
proceedings, reinforcing the need for ethical journalism that respects fundamental
rights.

According to Article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “ no one shall be

subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy family home or correspondence or
to attacks upon his honour and reputation everyone has a right to the protection of
flop against such interference or attacks”. The case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil
Nadu41 was a landmark 1994 Supreme Court. The Court ruled that an individual’s
private life cannot be exposed without their consent, except in cases involving public
interest or official misconduct that balanced the right to privacy with the freedom of
the press. While upholding Article 19(1)(a) the Court clarified that the press cannot
publish personal details about a person’s life without consent, unless the information
is already a matter of public record, the stand may, however, be different if a person
voluntarily pushes himself into controversy or voluntarily raises a controversy (add
fn). In the Arushi murder case, the newspapers were flooded with the transcript of the
deceased girl’s emails casting a blot on her character.

iii. Violation of Right to Reputation

41
1994) 6 SCC 632
 38

Right to Reputation is an essential part of one’s life 42. The violation of the right to
reputation is a serious consequence of media trials and sensationalized reporting. The
right to reputation is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as an
essential part of the right to life and personal liberty. When the media indulges in
biased reporting, character assassination, or unverified allegations, it can irreversibly
damage an individual's personal and professional life. Public figures accused persons,
and even victims often face social stigma, mental distress, and loss of credibility due
to defamatory content. During the court trial of the PIL filed by advocate Suraj Singh
in the Arushi Talwar murder case before the Supreme Court the justices Altamas
Kabir and Murkande Kartiju said that “ nobody is trying to disrespect the media they
must play a responsible role by investigation, the media must not do anything which
will be biased for either the plaintiff or the defendant sometimes by the entire focus is
lost a person is sound guilty even before the trial takes place.” 43 by passing a pre
judgment and setting a pre notion the media tarnishes the reputation of the suspect to
a great extent and then even if he is acquitted by the Court of law media trial creates a
negative impact on his reputation and his life in the society and on the people around
him.

42
AIR 1995 SC 264
43
Ibid.
 39

CHAPTER 5: ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE

MEDIA
The media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion, informing citizens, and
holding institutions accountable in a democratic society. With this power comes
immense responsibility, particularly in the context of legal proceedings where
excessive media scrutiny can compromise judicial integrity. Ethical journalism is
fundamental in ensuring that the public remains informed while safeguarding the
rights of individuals, particularly the accused in criminal cases. However, with the rise
of digital and electronic media, the pursuit of higher viewership and commercial gains
has led to a shift from responsible reporting to sensationalism. This has given rise to
ethical concerns regarding media trials, where the media assumes the role of judge,
jury, and executioner, often prejudging individuals even before a court of law delivers
a verdict.

While freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy, it is not an absolute right.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and
expression, but this is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) to protect
public order, decency, and the integrity of the judiciary. Ethical journalism requires a
balance between press freedom and responsible reporting, ensuring that media does
not encroach upon the right to a fair trial, which is equally safeguarded under Article
21 of the Constitution. As media influence continues to grow, it becomes imperative
to examine its ethical responsibilities, the need for self-regulation, the fine line
between investigative journalism and sensationalism, and the ethical dilemmas
journalists face in reporting criminal cases.

5.1NEED FOR RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM AND SELF-

REGULATION
 40

Responsible journalism is the foundation of a fair and impartial media landscape. It is

essential to maintain public trust, uphold the rule of law, and prevent misinformation.
The media’s role is to report facts accurately and objectively rather than acting as an
arbitrator in legal matters. A failure to exercise restraint can lead to trial by media,
where public opinion is shaped in a manner that can influence judicial proceedings.
The need for responsible journalism and self-regulation can be understood through the
following principles:
 Fact-Checking and Accuracy: The media must prioritize accuracy over speed. In an
age where breaking news dominates, unverified information is often disseminated
without proper scrutiny, leading to misinformation. Before publishing or broadcasting
sensitive legal matters, journalists must ensure they have verified facts from credible
sources.
 Avoiding Sensationalism: Crime reporting should not be driven by viewership ratings.
Instead of exaggerating and sensationalizing legal cases for dramatic appeal, media
houses must present information in a neutral and factual manner. Sensationalized
reporting not only distorts reality but also has the potential to create biases that
undermine judicial independence.
 Maintaining Judicial Respect and Integrity: Media trials must not interfere with
ongoing legal proceedings. Commentary that influences public perception can lead to
undue pressure on the judiciary and law enforcement agencies, affecting their
impartiality. The principle of innocent until proven guilty must be upheld by
journalists to prevent prejudgment of the accused.
 Privacy and Ethical Considerations: While media plays a role in exposing injustice, it
must also respect individuals’ right to privacy, particularly victims and accused
persons. Publishing sensitive details about personal lives, photographs, or family
information without consent can result in irreparable harm, even if the individual is
later found innocent.
 Adherence to Regulatory Frameworks: While India has bodies like the Press Council
of India (PCI) and News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), their authority in
enforcing ethical journalism is often limited. Strengthening self-regulatory
mechanisms within media houses and enforcing ethical codes of conduct can help
ensure responsible reporting.
Self-regulation in journalism is crucial for upholding the integrity of the press while
preventing state interference. Media houses must actively adopt ethical guidelines and
encourage journalistic integrity to maintain credibility and protect legal sanctity.

5.2 ROLE OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM VS.

SENSATIONALISM
 41

Investigative journalism is one of the most powerful tools of the media in exposing
corruption, human rights violations, and miscarriages of justice. It has played a
pivotal role in bringing hidden crimes to light, ensuring public awareness, and
pushing authorities to take corrective action. However, when investigative journalism
crosses the line into sensationalism, it can do more harm than good. The key
differences between responsible investigative journalism and sensationalist media
trials include:
 Purpose: Investigative journalism seeks to uncover the truth in the public interest,
whereas sensationalism aims to attract higher ratings and commercial success.
 Methodology: Investigative reports rely on in-depth research, credible sources, and
verifiable evidence, while sensationalized media often thrives on speculation, half-
truths, and emotional manipulation.

 Impact: Responsible journalism educates and informs society constructively, while

sensationalism fosters biases, spreads misinformation, and risks unjustified public
outrage.
The dangers of sensationalist journalism are particularly evident in criminal cases,
where excessive media focus can:
 Prejudice public opinion against the accused, thereby violating the principle of
fairness in judicial proceedings.
 Affect the mental and emotional well-being of individuals, especially those
wrongfully accused and later acquitted.
 Obstruct police investigations, as excessive media scrutiny can lead to the leakage of
crucial evidence, tampering with witnesses, and manipulation of case narratives.
To prevent sensationalism from overpowering investigative journalism, media
organizations must adopt clear ethical policies that prioritize truth and objectivity over
commercial gains.

5.3 ETHICAL DILEMMAS FACED BY JOURNALISTS

Journalists often encounter complex ethical dilemmas when covering high-profile

cases. The challenge lies in balancing the right to report with the responsibility to
uphold justice and fairness. Some of the key ethical dilemmas include:
1. Freedom of Speech vs. Fair Trial: How should the media report on an ongoing case
without creating prejudice? Should past allegations against an accused person be
highlighted, knowing they may influence public perception before the court reaches a
verdict?
 42

2. Public Interest vs. Right to Privacy: Is it justifiable to publish personal details of

individuals involved in a case? Should the media reveal the identities of victims or
accused persons before a formal judicial decision?
3. Breaking News vs. Accuracy: Should a media house prioritize being the first to report
a case, even if the information is unverified? What are the long-term consequences of
reporting false or incomplete information?
4. Public Pressure vs. Judicial Independence: Should the media amplify public outrage
over a case, knowing that it may pressure the judiciary to act hastily rather than
impartially?
5. Media Responsibility vs. Commercial Interests: How can journalists and media
organizations uphold ethical standards when sensational news attracts more viewers
and generates more revenue?

Journalistic ethics demand that such dilemmas be addressed with responsibility,

prioritizing justice and accuracy over commercial benefits. Media organizations must
ensure that their coverage aligns with legal principles and human rights rather than
focusing solely on public engagement metrics.
The debate over media trials highlights the urgent need for self-regulation, strict
adherence to journalistic ethics, and greater accountability in reporting legal matters.
Striking a balance between press freedom and judicial fairness ensures that the media
continues to serve as an instrument of truth without undermining the fundamental
rights of individuals. A democratic society thrives when its press remains free, but
with that freedom comes the indispensable duty of responsible journalism.
 43

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS

The issue of absolute freedom of speech and expression remains a subject of ongoing
debate in India, as the legal framework continues to evolve in response to new
challenges. From the cases discussed above, it is evident that both the law and the
media have distinct and well-defined roles to play, and any overlap of responsibilities
may lead to undesirable consequences. While the media serves as the voice of the
public and often brings attention to cases that might otherwise be overlooked, it must
operate within ethical and legal constraints to ensure that justice is not compromised.

Several high-profile cases in India, such as the Jessica Lal murder case and the
Aarushi Talwar case, illustrate how the media has at times assumed a more dominant
role than the legal system itself. These cases were driven by continuous media
coverage and the need to generate breaking news rather than allowing judicial
processes to take their natural course. While media activism played a crucial role in
reopening these cases and ensuring that justice was served, it also raised serious
concerns about the functioning of law enforcement agencies in the country. The role
of the judiciary and investigative agencies must be respected, and undue media
interference should not be allowed to influence the outcome of legal proceedings. A
fair trial and adherence to judicial procedures should be prioritized, as media trials
often lead to prejudiced public perceptions that may not align with the rule of law.

The issue extends beyond media interference in legal matters to the broader question
of the extent of freedom available to the Indian press and the right to privacy of the
accused. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, France, and the Netherlands
have implemented regulations requiring the consent of individuals before their
photographs or personal information can be published by the media. However, in
India, no such strict guidelines exist, leading to frequent instances of media
overstepping its boundaries. The absence of consent requirements means that the
media often publishes images of accused individuals even before trial proceedings
begin, thus violating their right to privacy. Every day, news organizations, particularly
electronic media, push the limits of privacy under the pretext of serving the public
 44

interest. The emergence of digital media has made the situation even more complex,
as information can be disseminated rapidly without thorough verification or
accountability.

Currently, there are no clear norms governing media trials in India. In most instances,
media trials involve high-profile individuals or well-known corporations, which
allows the media to sensationalize the issue further in order to attract viewership and
engagement. For example, in the sexual assault case involving Tarun Tejpal, the
exposure of incriminating evidence by multiple sources suggested his guilt. However,
despite strong indications of wrongdoing, he was still entitled to the due process of
law, as legal proceedings must be conducted in a manner that upholds justice rather
than being influenced by media narratives. The media should be seen as a facilitator in
uncovering cases of wrongdoing, but the final determination of guilt or innocence
must remain within the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

The above analysis highlights the severity of the problem in India and the fact that the
issue of media trials remains at a nascent stage in terms of legal regulation. The
frequent clashes between the media and the judiciary indicate a lack of clarity
regarding their respective roles and powers. Instead of adopting an adversarial stance
and blaming one another, it is necessary to find common ground and establish
guidelines that clearly define the responsibilities of both institutions. A balanced
approach that ensures transparency in legal proceedings while protecting the rights of
the accused must be adopted.

Rather than allowing media trials to undermine judicial integrity, it is essential to

work towards a system where the media and the legal framework function in harmony
to uphold justice. Judicial reforms and stricter media regulations must be introduced
to prevent undue influence on court proceedings while maintaining the fundamental
right to freedom of speech and expression. Ensuring a speedy trial and delivering
justice to both the accused and the victims should be the ultimate goal. As the saying
goes, "justice delayed is justice denied." It is crucial to create a legal environment
where trials are conducted fairly, judgments are based on evidence, and media
coverage remains responsible, ethical, and within legal limits. While freedom of the
press remains an essential pillar of democracy, it must be exercised responsibly to
maintain the integrity of the legal system. Instead of pitting media and the judiciary
against each other, efforts should be made to establish a harmonious balance where
both function within their defined limits, ensuring justice is served fairly. The ultimate
goal should be to ensure that the media remains a facilitator of justice rather than an
alternative adjudicator.
 45

SUGGESTIONS

Regulation of Media in Criminal Cases

Media plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and ensuring transparency in
governance, including criminal cases. However, unchecked media trials often lead to
prejudicial reporting, violating the rights of the accused and interfering with judicial
processes. In high-profile cases, media sensationalism can create a parallel narrative
that influences public perception, potentially affecting judicial outcomes. To maintain
a balance between press freedom and fair trial rights, various regulatory mechanisms
have been introduced.
Role of the Press Council of India
The Press Council of India (PCI), established under the Press Council Act, 1978,
acts as a watchdog to maintain journalistic ethics and prevent irresponsible reporting.
Though it does not have punitive powers, it issues guidelines and reprimands media
houses for violating norms. Some key aspects of the PCI’s role in criminal case
reporting include:
 Ensuring that media reports do not prejudice ongoing trials by avoiding biased
narratives.
 Issuing advisories against sensationalism and biased reporting that could compromise
judicial integrity.
 Taking suo motu cognizance of complaints regarding media misreporting in criminal
matters, allowing affected individuals to seek redress.
 Promoting ethical journalism to avoid character assassination and media-induced
prejudgment of cases.
 Encouraging responsible reporting that respects the rights of the accused, victims, and
legal institutions.
Despite its significant role, the PCI's lack of enforcement powers limits its
effectiveness in preventing media trials. In many instances, media houses continue to
 46

flout ethical guidelines due to commercial interests, leading to undue influence on

legal proceedings. Strengthening the PCI’s authority with binding enforcement
mechanisms could help curb such practices.
Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines for Fair Reporting
Unlike print media, electronic and digital media have different regulatory
frameworks. The News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA)
monitors content on television news channels to prevent biased and misleading
reporting. Some of the key guidelines include:
 Objectivity and Accuracy: News must be factual and verified, without conjecture or
assumptions. The spread of misinformation, particularly in sensitive criminal cases,
can cause irreversible harm to individuals and institutions.
 Presumption of Innocence: Reports should not portray an accused as guilty before
the verdict. Media narratives often create an environment where the accused is seen as
guilty in the public eye even before the court has pronounced judgment.
 Non-Interference with Judicial Process: Media should not conduct parallel
investigations or pronounce judgments, as it can influence judicial proceedings and
the jury (where applicable).
 Privacy of Individuals: The dignity and privacy of victims, accused, and witnesses
should be respected. Sensational reporting, particularly in sexual assault and murder
cases, can lead to public harassment and undue scrutiny of involved individuals.
 Prohibition of Trial by Media: Sensationalized discussions and debates that project a
one-sided narrative should be avoided to prevent undue influence on ongoing
investigations.
However, compliance with these guidelines remains largely voluntary, and violations
often go unpunished. Media organizations frequently justify their actions under the
right to freedom of speech and expression, even when their reporting impacts the
fairness of a trial. Establishing a stricter mechanism to enforce compliance with
broadcasting standards is necessary.
Need for a Legal Framework to Regulate Media Trials
Given the limitations of existing regulatory bodies, a comprehensive legal
framework is essential to prevent undue media interference in criminal proceedings.
Key aspects of such a framework should include:
 Statutory Regulations: Establishing enforceable laws to curb prejudicial media
reporting in criminal cases. This could include explicit legal provisions to penalize
media houses that violate fair reporting standards.
 Stronger Penal Provisions: Imposing fines or sanctions on media houses that engage
in prejudicial reporting. This would serve as a deterrent against unethical practices
 47

such as trial by media, unauthorized leaks of case details, and the spread of
misinformation.
 Judicial Oversight: Empowering courts to take immediate action against media trials
affecting the fairness of legal proceedings. Courts should have the authority to issue
gag orders when necessary to prevent prejudicial reporting.
 Clear Guidelines on Reporting Sensitive Cases: Establishing mandatory guidelines
for media coverage of cases involving sexual offenses, juveniles, terrorism, and
national security issues. This would prevent the media from compromising the dignity
and safety of victims, witnesses, and accused individuals.
 Regulating Social Media Influence: With the rise of digital platforms, unregulated
social media trials have become a significant concern. The legal framework should
also include mechanisms to prevent the spread of misinformation and biased
narratives on digital platforms.
 Awareness and Training: Educating journalists on responsible reporting and legal
boundaries in criminal cases. Regular workshops and certifications on ethical
journalism should be mandated for media professionals covering criminal
proceedings.
A structured legal mechanism will ensure that media fulfils its duty of informing the
public without jeopardizing the fundamental rights of the accused. Balancing media
freedom with judicial integrity is crucial to maintaining the sanctity of criminal justice
in India. Without proper regulations, the negative consequences of media trials can far
outweigh the benefits of a free press, leading to a compromised justice system.
 48

CHAPTER 7: BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Books & Journals

o Basu, D. D. Introduction to the Constitution of India. LexisNexis, 2020.

o Bakshi, P. M. The Constitution of India. Universal Law Publishing, 2019.

o Seervai, H. M. Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary. Universal

Law Publishing, 2014.

o Sarkar, S. K. Law of Contempt of Court in India. Eastern Book Company, 2018.

o Katju, M. Whither Indian Judiciary? Oxford University Press, 2018Newspaper

Articles & Reports

o "Trial by Media: A Threat to the Fair Trial Principle," The Hindu, August 12,
2020.

o "The Role of Media in High-Profile Criminal Cases," Indian Express, March 5,

2019.

o "Press Freedom and Judicial Integrity: The Fine Balance," Times of India,
November 22, 2021.

o "Aarushi Talwar Case: A Media Trial or Justice Served?" BBC News, December 5,
2017.

o Mishra, A. Freedom of Press vs. Right to Fair Trial: A Legal Perspective.

Universal Law Publishing, 2018.
 49

o Nariman, F. “Trial by Media: Free Speech vs. Fair Trial.” Journal of Indian Law
and Society, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2019.

o Bhattacharya, A. “Media Ethics and Judicial Integrity.” Indian Journal of

Constitutional Law, Vol. 12, Issue 1, 2021.
o Mehta, S. “Media Trials and Human Rights: A Legal Perspective.” Law and
Media Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2020.
o Sharma, P. “Impact of Sensationalism on Criminal Justice.” National Law Review
of India, Vol. 10, 2022.
o Rao, G. “Balancing Media Freedom and Fair Trial Rights in India.” Harvard

International Law Journal Online, 2021.

2. Web Resources

o Press Council of India, "Norms of Journalistic Conduct," available at:

www.presscouncil.nic.in

o P. Sainath https://www.outlookindia.com/author/p-sainath-2

o Law Commission of India, 200th Report on Trial by Media: Free Speech vs. Fair
Trial, 2006, available at: www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in

o Supreme Court of India judgments database: www.sci.gov.in

o "Media and Judiciary: The Complex Relationship," Harvard Law Review, Vol.
134, Issue 5, available at: www.harvardlawreview.org

o Aishwarya Agarwal, Media Trial and Judiciary https://lawbhoomi.com/media-

trial-and-judiciary/

o Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, and related legal provisions.

Available at www.indiacode.nic.in.

o Gavin Phillipson Trial by Media: The Betrayal of the First Amendment's Purpose
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27654682
 50

o Media Trials: Misuse of Freedom of Speech and Deterrent in the path of Justice
https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Media-Trials-Misuse-of-Freedom-of-
Speech-and-Deterrent-in-the-path-of-Justice
o Ray Surette, Media trials,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0047235289900342

o PRS Legislative Research Reports on Media Regulations. Available at

www.prsindia.org.

o https://www.lawaudience.com
o https://docs.manuputra.in
o https://www.alsi.edu.in
o https://blog.ipleders.in
o https://shodhganga.inflinet.ac.com
o https://www.lawyersclubindia.com
o https://www.legalserviceindia.com

o Law Commission of India, Reports on Free Speech and Fair Trial, Government
of India, 2017. Retrieved from www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in.
51