GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT?

INTRODUCTION

An observation in Benjamin Franklin's letter penned in 1785 certainly finds its flavour in Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, it read:

"It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffers."

Time and again, the Constitutional Courts of India have reiterated and emphasised on the vital aspect of providing a fair trial to the Accused. The Apex Court had observed that if fair trial envisaged under the Code is not imparted to the Parties and has reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency has not adhered to it, the Court has sufficient powers under the Code to sub serve the cause of Justice.1

The Apex Court while emphasising on the Importance of Fair Trial observed "Assurance of Fair Trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of Justice."2

It was held in the Apex Court's decision of State of Punjab v Baldev Singh3 that conducting a fair trial is both beneficial to the to the accused as well as the Society. A Conviction resulting from an unfair trial is definitely contrary to the Concept of Justice. Fair Trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of Judicial Calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice is not against the accused, the witnesses or the cause which is being tried is eliminated."

One of the Principles which forms the bedrock of Criminal Jurisprudence in India is the Presumption of Innocence until proven guilty, also substantiated in State of UP v Naresh and Ors4 wherein the Apex Court observed "every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right subject to the statutory exceptions. The said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India".5

Hence the Constitutional Courts of the Country have time and again reiterated that Right to Fair Trial is embodied in the Fundamental Right guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 21.

A fair Trial requires bias or Injustice to be removed, but the Recent trend has seen Media violating this Right to its teeth, it seems that the media has certainly forgotten it's role, and the Television Rating Points better known as TRP's have clearly dominated their purpose of existence. However, in many cases, it is but for the Media solely, that the Victims have been presented in the Spotlight and have been placed in a position to demand Justice, however as earlier mentioned, that their role certainly ends there.

INDIAN CASES

Following are some of the Few Indian Cases where the Media has had a deep impact on the trial in the Court of Law, and a critical analysis therein.

Santosh Kumar Singh v State through CBI6(Priyadarshini Mattoo Rape Case)

This is one of such cases which shocked the Conscience of the State, and indicated a failure on part of our Criminal Justice System In India. In this Case Priyadarshini Mattoo, a twenty-five-year law student was found murdered and Raped at her Residence. The Trial Court, acquitted the accused, Santosh Kumar Singh, son of an IPS officer. The Trial Court Judge while acquitting the accused observed

"Though I know he is the man who committed the crime, I acquit him giving him the benefit of doubt."

The Appeal to the Delhi High Court was kept pending for a stretch of six years, which roared the public, and the cause was taken up by the media, subsequently the appeal was entertained and the accused was sentenced to death penalty, within forty-one days.

So here it can be seen from a layman's perspective that the Media had served the Rule of the Country to a great extent.

The 2G Spectrum Case

In this Case, Sunil Mittal, an accused in this Case, though the only evidence against him by the Central Bureau was him attending the wedding of the daughter of Telecom Secretary, the Media Reports remarked 'CBI nailed him', although the Courts later threw out the CBI evidence, enough trauma had already been caused to the Accused and his family.

Here, in the Contrary, a negative role of the Media could be seen, wherein it certainly crossed its limits and carried out a parallel investigation, without any final verdict having been arrived by the Supreme Court, the Media seem to had pronounced its own version of Verdict, and certainly influencing the minds of Public, because it is a well-known fact, that the Media has the undue advantage of influencing a layman even to a wrong cause.

Sidhartha Vashsisht @Manu Sharma v NCT of Delhi (Jessica Lal Murder Case)

This is one such cases, which led to the media being addressed as the "Last baston of Protection of Prying eyes" and it significantly reduced the confidence of the Public in the Judiciary. This is known as the Case which took the Justice System by Storm. Here the defendant was accused of shooting Jessica Lal (The Victim) Point blank. The Trial Court acquitted the accused in 2006 after prime witnesses turned hostile. This is where the Media stepped in. The Acquittal triggered public sentiments, and a strong media Campaign was carried out demanding Justice, News Channels namely NDTV among a lot launched a 'fight for Jessica Lal' SMS Campaign which made the battle grow.

Sonia Singh, who led the NDTV campaign, wrote in her book More News is Good News:

"My colleagues and I felt very strongly that there had to be some way to address an injustice which summed up in so many ways the collapse of a system. How the intersection of many factors – power, wealth, pliable investigators, judicial delays had all collectively contributed to a verdict which, as a newspaper headline said, meant that no one killed Jessica. What it added up to was that we all killed Jessica by letting justice die the way it did."7

Subsequently on 20th December 2006 the High Court Convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment, later upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Role of Media here can be viewed from two angles. Firstly, the Media was successful in grabbing public attention which did to a major extent helped the momentum of the Case flow, however another Angle can be said to be that of the blatant violation of the Constitutional Rights of the Accused to a Fair Trial, which is guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, because the Media Campaign set itself as a parallel 'Public Court' where there seems to be no Rule of evidence Considered. The Parallel public Court had already instilled in the minds of the Public even before any verdict of the Court, that the Accused was already guilty. This Case truly raises a big question mark as to where should the Role of Media end.

Sushant Singh Case8

The Ongoing case of the alleged killing of Bollywood Industry Actor Sushant Singh Rajput is a clear example of the Negative impact of Media Trial. Wherein the Charge sheet stills remains to be filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, however the Media seems to have convicted the accused Rhea Chakraborty thereby severely affecting her Right to Free Trial as guaranteed by our Constitution.

"Anything heard on the Television is presumed to be the Gospel unless proved to be false, this atmosphere is not conducive to the Rule of Law and this is the single biggest impediment in India's growth story." – Sr. Advocate Harish Salve.

Lord Denning very magnificently stated "The claim to Judicial superiority over human frailty is one which I find impossible to accept." Hence creating a notional fiction that Judges should not be affected by Media Trials.

It can be very well said that there is needed a robust legislation to keep a check on this transgression of Power which is absolutely lacking in the present day. The Press Council Of India must bring in aggressive stringent frameworks to stop this transgression and abuse of power. The National Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) although has taken up the cause but still remains woefully inadequate considering the menace The Courts have seemed to have giving repeated sermons and caveats on the perils of Media Trial.

Justice Mukherjee aptly sums up the menace of media trials in a case and states:

"A trial by press electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of Rule of Law."

CONCLUSION

In a delicate dance between media influence and the cornerstone of fair trial rights, the Indian legal landscape grapples with a complex interplay. As our Constitutional Courts resound the importance of fair trials under Article 21, the impact of media on high-profile cases stands at the forefront of legal discussions.

The essence of a fair trial, impartial and just, finds itself at odds with the intrusive nature of media narratives. The media, while instrumental in illuminating injustices and mobilizing public support for deserving cases, blurs the line between reporting and shaping legal proceedings. Cases like Priyadarshini Mattoo's, the 2G Spectrum case, and the Jessica Lal murder case showcase the dual facets of media impact: sometimes propelling the pursuit of justice, yet occasionally encroaching prematurely on public opinion and potentially swaying judicial outcomes.

The ongoing saga of the Sushant Singh case spotlights the harmful effects of unchecked media sensationalism. Rushing to pronounce verdicts in the public sphere before due process highlights the urgent need for firm legislation to curtail media overreach. The absence of robust frameworks to regulate media conduct in high-profile cases challenges the bedrock of the rule of law and poses a significant obstacle to fair and impartial justice.

As legal stalwarts caution against the perils of media trials, underscoring the pressing need to uphold the sanctity of fair trials, the call for comprehensive legislation to rein in media excesses grows louder. The Press Council of India and the National Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) must evolve stringent measures to ensure responsible wielding of the Fourth Estate's power, safeguarding fundamental principles of justice and fair trial rights enshrined in our Constitution.

In the poignant words of Justice Mukherjee, trials by media or public agitation stand in stark contrast to the essence of the rule of law. It falls on the collective conscience of the legal fraternity, regulatory bodies, and policymakers to build a robust defense against the encroachment of media sensationalism. Upholding the constitutional right to fair trials while championing justice for all remains an enduring imperative for our society and legal system.

Footnotes

1 Himanshu Singh Sabharwa v State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors, (2008) 4 SCR 783, (India)

2 Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Anr. v. Ms. Rani Jethmalani (1979) (4) SCC 167, (India)

3 State of Punjab v Baldev Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2378 (India)

4 (2001) 4 SCC 324 (India)

5 Y Srinivasa Rao, Right to Fair Trial, (Oct 10, 2020, 08: 18 AM), districs.ecourts.gov.in

6 (2010) 9 SCC 747

7 "Asmita Nandy , Jessica Lall Murder Case: Murder , a media campaign , justice and Forgiveness , the quint , (Oct 11 , 2020 , 20:13 PM ) , https://www.thequint.com/explainers/jessica-lall-case-sabrina-lall-on-manu-sharma-explainerhttps://www.thequint.com/explainers/jessica-lall-case-sabrina-lall-on-manu-sharma-explainer"

8 Rhea Chakraborty v Union of India, CNR No. MHCC02-008469-2020

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.