Media Trial: Freedom of the Press versus Fair Trial

Abstract The media is presumed to be a watchdog of democracy. Their right to “freedom of the press and expression” has been guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, which is further subject to reasonable restrictions. However, the recent journalism trend in India, “Media Trial,” has not only misused their right but also shown an antithesis to another fundamental principle of justice that is the right to a “fair trial” guaranteed under Article 21, which states that no one is subjected to discrimination in the legal system. By practicing “yellow journalism,” the media deliberately influence public opinion and judicial decisions, create narratives through informal courts on subjudice issues, which further leads to the accused being deprived of their right to an impartial trial and right to dignity. Even the fallacious coverage of the media is not under scrutiny because of the confidence people have entrusted in them. Where journalism should complement the freedom of speech and expression with a fair trial, media trials are in a contradictory position where they may both empower individuals with knowledge and, if uncontrolled, undermine confidence in the impartiality of the legal system. This concern has also been shown by the Supreme Court of India in various judgments by holding the view that trial by press or electronic media, accelerating public agitation, is antithetical to the rule of law and can further lead to the miscarriage of justice, and a judge shall protect himself against such ‘pressure’. The judiciary's task is to preserve this equilibrium and prevent excessive meddling by the media in the administration of justice. This necessitates to regulate and promote responsible reporting and respect for constitutional limitations under Article 19(2). This involves protecting judicial independence, and acknowledging the limits of free speech. In the end, maintaining public trust in democracy.