Famous Cases of Media Trials in India - Ipleaders
Famous Cases of Media Trials in India - Ipleaders
Famous Cases of Media Trials in India - Ipleaders
This article is written by Vanya Verma pursuing B.B.A.LL.B (Hons.) from Alliance
University, Bangalore. This article deals with famous cases that have been tried by the
media and what is the criticism of media trials as to how it interferes with the Court
proceedings.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. What is a Media Trial?
3. Famous Indian Cases of Media Trial
3.1. Sanjay Dutt Case
3.2. Sheena Bohra Murder Case
3.3. Jessica Lal Murder
3.4. The Tikku, Kakkar double murder case
3.5. The Delhi rape case
3.6. Neeraj Grover Murder Case
3.7. Nitish Katara Murder Case
3.8. Nithari Kand
3.9. Ayodhya dispute
3.10. Sunanda Pushkar Murder Case
3.11. The Priyadarshini Mattoo Case
3.12. Pradyuman Thakur Murder Case
3.13. Arushi-Hemraj Murder Case
3.14. Pramod Mahajan Killing
3.15. Yakub Menon Case
4. Criticism of Media Trial
5. Influence of media on the accused
6. Influence of media on the witness
7. Influence of Media on Judges and Court
8. Media Trials vs Freedom of Speech and Expression
9. Media Trials v. Fair Trial
10. Media Trials v. Right to be Represented
11. Is Media Trial Contempt of Court?
12. Law Commission 200th Report
13. Conclusion
14. References
Introduction
Media was once a boon that enlightened people and made them aware of what is going
around in the world. The Indian media has to follow the principles laid down in the
Constitution of India. There are essentially three pillars of democracy that are the
legislature, executive and judiciary and now the media has become the fourth pillar of
democracy. It highlights the social, legal, economic and cultural problems of the society.
Media has now transformed itself into a Janta Adalats or ‘public court’ and started
intervening in the proceedings of the court. The vital gap between the convict and
accused is completely overlooked by the media by keeping at stake the cardinal
principles of ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ and ‘guilt beyond reasonable
doubt’. Now what is being observed is a separate investigation done by the media itself
which is called a media trial. Along with investigation, it includes forming public opinion
against the suspect or the accused even before the court takes cognizance of the case.
As a result of this, the public is prejudiced due to which the accused who should have
been assumed innocent is presumed to be a criminal abandoning all his rights and liberty
unrepressed.
The excessive publicity of the accused or the suspect in the media before the trial in a
court of law, either incriminates a fair trial or results in characterizing the accused or
suspect as the one who has certainly committed the crime, this amounts to undue
interference with the “administration of justice”, which calls for proceedings against
media for contempt of court. The rules that have been designed to regulate the
journalism and journalism conduct are unfortunately inadequate to prevent the
encroachment upon civil rights.
According to him, he kept the gun in order to protect his family because of the threats
that he had received during the riots in Mumbai which was followed by the Babri Masjid
demolition in December, 1992. After Sanjay Dutt heard the arrest of Hanif Kadawala and
Samir Hingora and the serial blasts in Mumbai, Dutt asked his friend Yusuf Nulwalla to
destroy the rifle. Though, the statement was later withdrawn by him. After this, he was
soon charged and arrested under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
(TADA), 1987 for receiving ammunition from Abu Salem and his involvement in the
blasts.
However, after 18 months of imprisonment, Sanjay Dutt was able to secure a bail. The
TADA court after 11 years acquitted Sanjay Dutt of all charges made against him after
observing that he had acquired guns for self-defence and he was not a terrorist. He was
sentenced to six years in jail for conviction under the Arms Act, for which Sanjay Dutt
had managed to secure a bail from the Supreme Court. On 31 July, 2007, he was sent to
Pune’s Yerawada prison. However, he was later out on bail. On March 21, 2013, the
Supreme Court had further cut short his term to five and which ended on February 27,
2016.
Being a famous actor, this case was highlighted by the media to an extent, the media
portrayed the picture of Sanjay Dutt as a terrorist, which was later held by the Court
that he was not accused of those charges. After this incident, being an actor he had to
suffer a lot of problems and outrage and his reputation got depleted.
Sheena Bohra Murder Case
In the year 2012 Indrani Mukerjea was arrested for the murder of Sheena Bora, the
shocking news, in this case, was that Sheena was the daughter, not the sister as claimed
by Indrani Mukerjea. The media highlighted the case and even after her arrest Indrani
never accepted that she had two children and was stuck to her statement claiming
Sheena as her sister. The murder also brought into light the murky financial dealings of
Indra Mukerjea and her husband Peter Mukerjea. They successfully manipulated facts
hence no trail was initiated against them for three years.
The personal life of Indrani Mukerjea had been pierced by the tormenting eyes of the
media which paved the way for fresh debate in the murder trial issue of the accused.
Indrani’s character and personal life, all the aspects which have no ration with the
investigation of the murder of Sheena were under the public lens of scrutiny through
media. The journalism ethics had been again under the controversial debate due to their
meddling with the personal matter of the accused.
In 1998 Palande had been convicted of a double murder and then again in the year
2002, he jumped parole in 2003, went for a cosmetic surgery to Bangkok to change his
features and in 2005 he returned to Mumbai.
In 2012, this double murder case shook the nation and made its way to TV and
newspaper headlines as one of the most chilling murder mysteries in valuing a
sophisticated serial killer in recent times in India. He was arrested for masterminding the
murders of Tikku and Kakkar. On November 18, 2011, Palande was given a life sentence
for the murder of the two men.
Since the laws in India do not permit the press to reveal the name of the game victim,
the victim has become widely known as Nirbhaya, meaning “fearless”, and the girl’s
struggle against the incident and her death has become a symbol of resistance by the
women in the world.
This incident inflamed extensive national and international coverage. The incident was
criticized widely, both in India as well as abroad. Thereafter, there were multiple protests
in different parts of the country against the central and state governments for failing to
provide proper security for women.
Due to so much outrage in the media, there were multiple amendments in the laws
including the Juvenile Justice Act, where for the heinous crime the age for punishment
had been reduced to from eighteen to sixteen.
Sometimes in the media trial, the accused is even not given proper conviction which he
is entitled to.
Nithari Kand
In 2007, dead bodies of children and adults were found in the house of Moninder Sinh
Pandher situated in Nithari village of Noida. It was revealed as soon as the investigation
begins that servant of Pandher, Surender Kohli had been involved in raping and killing
women which included minors and even used to eat their body parts, there was one case
where he even cooked the body parts. Moninder Sinh Pandher was acquitted in 2009 of
the charges against him in one case but he is still a co-accused in other case and his
death penalty has been overturned. The Allahabad High Court commuted Surender
Kohli’s death sentence to life imprisonment. After that, the CBI Court had pronounced
both Surinder Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher guilty in the attempt to rape and murder
of Pinki Sarkar who was 20 years old. This was the eighth murder committed by them
out of sixteen murder cases in which judgement has been delivered. The case got
highlighted by the media and the accused was served the punishment.
Ayodhya dispute
It is one of the most discussed and famous cases in India. This case has strong religious,
historical and political roots. The dispute revolves around a piece of land in the birthplace
of Lord Rama, Ayodhya. The critical issues, in this case, were between the Hindu and
Muslim communities regarding this piece of land that carried some religious beliefs
between the community Hindus and Muslims. The famous Babri Masjid which is thought
to be at the same place was demolished by violent Hindu activists during a rally on 6th
December 1992 which is thought to be located where a Ram Temple already existed and
the place where Lord Rama was born.
This Act of demolition led to violent riots and consequently, a case was filed in the
Allahabad High Court for the entitlement of land. With time the case kept on becoming
more controversial and the final judgment came finally after 18 years. The judgement
was passed keeping in mind the religious sentiments of both the communities. The court
ordered that the Ayodhya land that was of 2.77 acres will be split up into three parts.
One-third of the land was registered to Sunni Waqf Board, another one third to Hindu
Mahasabha to build Ram temple and the remaining one third be passed to Nirmohi
Akhara (Hindu religious group).
This case had been tried long by the media and showing little disputes over the media
and irrelevant things related to the case which just worked as feeling the disputes
between the two communities all over India.
A day before her murder she had a dispute on twitter with a Pakistani journalist, Mehr
Tarar. The dispute was regarding the tweets of the journalist which hinted at a possibility
of an affair between the journalist and Sunanda’s Husband, Shashi Tharoor. The case is
still under investigation, her autopsy report claimed that Sunanda died due to an
overdose of sleeping pills, but later in October, the medical team reported that they had
been pressured to provide a tailored report. The Police stated that Sunanda had been
poisoned and murdered but there was no suspect. No one has been arrested for the
murder of Sunanda Pushkar to date.
This was another case of media trial where the media claimed that Shashi Tharoor had
committed the murder when the case was still under investigation and the trial wasn’t
started in the Court of law yet. Shashi Tharoor had to face a lot of controversy after that.
A sustained public outcry and a media campaign against the acquittal led to an appeal in
the High Court which culminated in the conviction and death sentence. On 30 October
2006, the Delhi high court had ordered the death sentence which was later converted
into life imprisonment by the Supreme Court.
Due to so much of the media coverage and trial by media, in this case, the lawyer
defending the accused had been heavily criticized which made it difficult for the lawyers
to fulfil their ethical duty of providing legal aid to the parties.
In the wake of growing instances of media trials, there is a need that the Supreme Court
should delve into the issue as it leads to public condemnation of the accused on the basis
of information provided by prosecutors and police, though the trial before the court of
law has still not been initiated.
The Courts have taken a serious note on the reports of a media briefing by the police
and other investigating agencies. Nothing should be done in order to hamper the
investigation process and secrecy of the inquiry. All of these need certain checks as they
all fall within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution.
When a trial is already going on in the Court, the parallel process of trial by media
should not be allowed. It is now expected that the Supreme Court will consider to frame
guidelines for the media over covering criminal cases and briefing by the investigating
agencies.
In Saibal Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. B.K. Sen and Anr., 1961, the Supreme Court held,
there’s no doubt that it would be mischievous for a newspaper to intrude into a crime
and execute an independent investigation for which the accused or suspect has been
arrested and then to publish the outcomes of that investigation. This is mischievous
because when there is an ongoing trial by one of the regular tribunals of the country
then trial by newspapers must be prohibited. This is based upon the view that such
action by the newspaper of doing an investigation tends to interfere with the course of
justice, whether the investigation tends to prejudice the accused or the prosecution.
In Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration) and Ors, 1996, the Delhi High
Court held that no conviction will be based upon the media report but upon the facts that
have been placed on record. It is supposed that the Judge dealing with the case should
be neutral. If the decision is based upon the accepted news items, the petitioner will
insist upon denial of a fair trial because it would cause aspiration on the Judge of being
not neutral. Even if there is less report or no report available, the charge should be
framed on the basis of material available on record.
The purpose of media has eventually changed with the progression of time. There is
interference by the media in the role of the judiciary in most of the cases instead of just
stating the case facts. The underlying foundation of the judicial system has been eaten
by the termite of corruption in the largest democratic set-up. Unethical steps are
followed by the litigants in order to save the accused from conviction through bribing the
public authorities to distort the evidence, pressurize the defence to withdraw the case,
etc. Due to this enormous institutional imbalance, there has been pre-emptive media
coverage of criminal trials. Media has been successful in making a prejudicial stance in
the minds of the public by their sensational style of journalism.
If the person who is suspect or an accused is acquitted by the Court after the due
process, even the acquittal may not prove to be helpful for the accused to rebuild his
image in the society.
The witness at an early stage wants to withdraw and get out of chaos soon.
Then the protection of the witness is a serious issue. This brings a question about the
admissibility of the evidence of a hostile witness and whether there should be an
amendment in the law for the prevention of witnesses from changing their
statements.
A Judge has to protect himself from such media pressure which can ‘unconsciously’
influence the juries or the judges and as human beings, the judges are prone at least
subconsciously or unconsciously to such indirect influences.
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, 1997, the Supreme
Court held that a trial by electronic media, press or by way of public agitation is anti-
thesis to the rule of law and can lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Keeping this view in mind in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of
India, 1985, Venkataramiah, J. of the Supreme Court of India has stated that the
freedom of the press is the heart of social and political intercourse. The press has now
assumed the role of public educators and makes education possible at a large scale by
imparting formal and non-formal education particularly in the developing world, where
all forms of modern communication like television and other kinds are not available to all
the sections of the society. The objective of the press is to boost the public interest by
publishing opinions and facts without which the responsible judgement cannot be made
by a democratic electorate (Government). Newspapers which are purveyors of news and
views of the people have a bearing on public administration and frequently carry material
which would not be pleasing to Governments and other authorities.
From the above statement of the Supreme Court, it can be demonstrated that freedom
of the press is essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process. It is
obvious that every citizen is entitled to participate in the democratic process and
democracy means the Government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Every individual in order to allow him to exercise his right intelligently of making a
choice, then free and general discussion of public matters becomes essential. This
constitutional viewpoint of the freedom of the press in India is explained through this.
In the case of Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd, 1994, few guidelines were
laid down by the Supreme Court and principles that are needed to be kept in view while
considering the constitutionality of a statutory provision, the restrictions were imposed
on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) to (g) of the Constitution
of India when the freedom is challenged on the grounds of unreasonableness.
The Press Council of India directs the Media that it should not give unreasonable
publicity parallel to the victim, accused, witnesses and also not to disclose any
information that is confidential which may hamper or prejudice the process of
investigation. It is also required that the media should not identify any witness as then
their chances to turn hostile increases and mainly the media should not be running any
parallel trial of the case that brings an undue pressure on the judge or the jury
adjudicating upon the case.
In the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, 2006, the Supreme Court
has held that it is reflected in numerous practices and rules, a fair trial would obviously
mean a trial that is conducted before a Judge who is impartial and a fair prosecutor in an
atmosphere of judicial calm. A Fair trial includes a trial, in which bias or prejudice for or
against the witnesses, accused or the cause which is being tried is eliminated.
In the case of Vijay Singhal and Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., 2013, it was
held by the Court that the trials’ objective is to meet the ends of justice, and if, there is a
competition in order to meet that end between the right to freedom of expression
against the right to a free trial, the right to free trial would Trump upon the right to
freedom of expression.
It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation
Ltd. and Ors. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr., 2012, that the media
has a right to know what is happening in courts and to communicate the information to
the public which strengthens the confidence of the public in the transparency of the court
proceedings. Sometimes a reporting of trial that is accurate and fair like a murder trial
would anyway give rise to a substantial risk of prejudice that might not be related to the
pending trials but later in the connected trials. The fairness of the later or connected
trials is not only safeguarded by the postponement but it also helps in preventing the
possible contempt by the Media.
The Supreme Court and High Court in many judgments have criticized the trial by the
media on the sub-judice matter as it prejudices the opinion of the judge or the jury on
that particular case and sometimes even on similar cases later. The Press Council of
India has also prescribed in their 2010 edition of Norm of Journalism Conduct to abstain
from performing such sensational journalism.
In such instances, the security of the lawyers falls in danger because of which they are
unable to fulfil their obligation of ethical duty to provide legal aid in criminal matters. As
a result media trials affect the principle of natural justice.
Criminal contempt has been divided further into three types, that are:
Prejudicing trial;
Scandalizing;
Contempt of court has been initiated to curb such unfair and unjust trials. Any
publication of news that is circulated with an intention to poison the minds of the
accused, witnesses, or the jurors or to create such an atmosphere where the
administration of justice would become difficult or impossible, amounts to contempt.
Contempt of Court also includes commenting on the pending cases or abuse of party
only when a case is triable by a judge. No right lies with the media to play the role of an
investigator, in any case, to try to prejudice the court.
The starting point of a criminal case should not be from the filing of the charge sheet
but from the time of arrest of an accused. The perception behind such an amendment
is that it would prevent prejudicing or prejudging the case.
The High Court is empowered to direct the postponement of the telecast or the
publication in criminal cases and to prevent the media from restoring to such a
telecast or publication.
Conclusion
There have been numerous instances where the media has been blamed and accused of
conducting the trial of the accused by passing the “Verdict” according to their
investigation before the judgement is passed by the Court. It is essential that the trial
must be carried out by the Court and not the media. The trial by the media is certainly
an undue interference in the procedure of delivery of justice.
The legislature has a great responsibility to perform while drafting laws on media,
ensuring that their freedom is not curtailed. Media has the right to discuss and comment
on the case judgments but they have no right or freedom to start a trial on sub-judice
matters. The right of the accused to have a fair trial is always more important than the
freedom of media before starting the trial of the pending case. Media trial hinders the
purpose of justice.
It becomes clear that the influence of the media had a more negative effect rather than
a positive effect (except for a few exceptions). The Courts should properly regulate the
media. The Courts should not grant free hand to the media in the Court proceedings as
they are not some event of the sport.
The most favourable way for legislating the media is by exercising the contempt of court
to penalize the ones who interfere with the basic code of conduct. The Supreme Court
has approved in a number of cases the use of contempt powers by the Courts against
the newspapers and media channels. Freedom of speech and expression cannot be
allowed to the media to an extent to prejudice the trial itself.
References
https://www.rediff.com/news/report/pix-14-sensational-murders-that-shook-
india-/20150827.htm
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-5-famous-crime-case-in-India
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/media-trials-india/
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/JayantaGhosh1/media-trial
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and
various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA
Did you find this blog post helpful? Subscribe so that you never miss another post! Just complete this
form…
Name
Email Address
10-6=?
SUBSCRIBE!