The media have a crucial role in influencing public debate and maintaining transparency in governance. In the domain of criminal justice, the occurrence of trial by media has elicited significant apprehensions regarding its influence on the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defence, and the autonomy of the judiciary. This study examines the intricate relationship between media sensationalism and legal integrity, investigating how broad and biassed media coverage affects judicial decisions, undermines public trust in the judiciary, and jeopardises the rights of the accused. This qualitative analysis of prominent cases and legal precedents reveals occasions when media narratives have influenced judicial outcomes, coerced courts into issuing rulings that reflect public opinion, and compromised the impartiality of judges and witnesses. The research article assesses the constitutional and legal protections established to govern media involvement, contrasting methodologies from several jurisdictions, including Nepal, India, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It additionally exposes deficiencies in current regulatory frameworks and suggests legislative proposals to reconcile media freedom with the ideals of fair trial and due process. The results highlight the necessity for ethical media, enhanced judicial safeguards, and informed public dialogue to avert the transformation of the court system into a spectacle fuelled by sensationalism instead of evidence-based decision-making. The article enhances the conversation on criminal justice reforms by proposing a systematic regulatory framework to alleviate the detrimental impacts of media trials on the administration of criminal justice in the modern context.
S. Gautam (Fri,) studied this question.