Media trials

Suhani

A legal trial is a formal judicial process where evidence is presented, witnesses are called, and arguments are made to determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant accused of a crime. The trial follows specific legal procedures, such as jury selection, opening statements, examination of witnesses, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and jury deliberation while on the other hand rial by Media’ generally refers to a practice where the media starts a separate investigation
and forms a public opinion against the accused before the actual trial commences. In this
way, it prejudices the trial leading to infringement of the rights of the accused. Thus, the
accused, who should be considered innocent until proven guilty, is now presumed guilty,
violating his fundamental rights.
The term media trial or ‘Trial by Media’ has been in use since the early 1980s to narrate the
impact of media coverage (print, electronic, and now online too) on an ongoing legal trial and
hence draw up the sense of wrong or right in the minds of the people. We could clarify it as
public protests through the media.
A formal description of the phrase would be the impact of television and newspaper coverage
on the reputation of a person’s institution organization by creating a widespread insight of guilt or guiltlessness before a court of law declares the verdict. Sometimes media trials are held after
the verdict is announced when the
public is not happy with the judgment
Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law.
In recent times there have been numerous instances in which the media has conducted the trial of an accused and has passed the verdict even before the court passes its judgement.
In 2008, a 13-year-old Aarushi Talvar was found dead in her bedroom. The news caught fire,
and media trials and speculation began. The prime suspect in the first few hours, the domestic
help who was missing, was also found dead later the same day. Different media channels had
their theories and continued to squeeze TRPs out of a tragedy.
2 ) In the Jessica Lal murder case in 1999, the bartender was shot dead in New Delhi after she
refused to serve liquor after the bar was closed.
This case also went through Trial by media, and many names were assumed to be the culprits.
In the famous KM Nanavati case, a commander of the Navy was accused of the murder of his
friend Prem Ahuja. In this case as well, an extensive Trial by media happened, and the wife of
Nanavati was at the receiving end of several indecent allegations.If the naming of witnesses is published, there is a risk of the life of the witnesses coming under
force from both the accused or his associates and the police.
The witnesses want to retract and get out of the chaos in the early stage.Witness protection is
then a severe casualty.This leads to the interrogation about the admissibility of hostile witness
evidence and whether the law should be amended to prevent witnesses from changing their
statements.
It the media projects an accused or a suspect as if he has already been convicted guilty well
before the Trial in court, there can be severe prejudice to the accused. Even if, eventually, the
person is acquitted after the court’s due action, such an acquittal may not help the accused
rebuild his past image in society.Excessive publicity in the media characterizing him as a person
who had indeed committed the crime amounts to undue intervention with the “administration of
justice”, calling for proceedings for contempt of court against the media.
Influence of media on judges and court :
Judges are not safe from criticism regarding their judicial conduct or their conduct in a purely
private capacity. But it is of concern when their complaints are ill-informed or entirely without
foundation and may undermine public confidence in judicial institutions. A judge is to regard
himself against such pressure. A media publication can “unconsciously” influence judges or
juries and whether judges, as human beings, are not susceptible to such indirect influences, at
least subconsciously or unconsciously.
Implications of Trial by Media?
Affects Judicial Functioning:
Concerted campaigns against judges, particularly on social media, and media trials affect judicial functioning.
Ill-informed, biased and agenda-driven debates in the media on issues pending in courts are affecting justice delivery.

Unable to Distinguish Fake and Real:
New media tools have enormous amplifying ability but appear to be incapable of distinguishing between the right and the wrong, the good and the bad and the real and the fake.
Media trials cannot be a guiding factor in deciding cases.
Wrongful Portrayal:
Media has been successful in portraying events that have to be kept a secret.
Media trials have caused wrongful portrayal of alleged accused and have acted as a helping hand in destroying their careers merely by the fact that they were accused, even though they have not yet been portrayed guilty by the court of law.

Not Good for Democracy:
Media has breached its responsibility, taking democracy two steps backwards, affecting people and harming the system.
Print media still has a certain degree of accountability whereas electronic media has zero accountability as to what it shows vanishes in thin air.
Instigate Hatred and Violence:
Paid news and fake news can manipulate public perception and can instigate hatred, violence, and disharmony among the various communities within society.
The absence of objective journalism leads to the false presentation of truth in a society which affects the perception and opinions of people.
Right to privacy:
They invade their privacy which causes a breach of the Right to Privacy guaranteed under Article 21.
To sum it all up, Media should understand that its role is to raise issues which the public is facing. Media can be a voice for those who can’t speak for themselves. Media should not deliver judgment because in India we have a judiciary for this purpose.
Media should maintain its code of laws and ethics, social responsibility and credibility by not interfering in the matters of court so early. Instead, they should do the research, keep a check on high profile cases, find the evidence and keep it to them until and unless they find the truth suppressing.