Trial by Media By Shriram Srinath

The media in the present age holds tremendous power. From shaping public opinion, to echoing peoples sentiments, or even mobilising the masses, the media seemingly has the magic wand. Being the watchdog of society, it is the role of the media to ensure that justice is served whenever the rich and powerful abuse the rights of the poor. In doing so, the accused may have to bear a trial by the media. Here the media coverage shapes widespread perception of the guilt or innocence of the accused, before or even after a verdict in the court of law. The media steps out of its conventional role of being neutral and takes to judging the accused. Trial by media appears to be a double edged sword. Let us look at the advantages and the disadvantages of a trial by the media. The Good In recent times there have been multiple cases where the guilty would have walked scot-free had it not been for the media. One of these is the infamous Jessica Lal murder case, where the prime accused, Manu Sharma shot and killed Jessica Lal, a model from Delhi, at a party in front of dozens of witnesses. Before media intervention Manu Sharma was acquitted by a trial court. This was due to the influence Manu Sharma and his father, who was a politician, commanded on the police, the prosecution and the lawyers. The acquittal resulted in outrage among the masses. After the media stepped in though, the case was re-tried and Manu Sharma was sentenced to life in prison. There are other cases such as the recent Damini Delhi Rape case where media and public pressure resulted in the investigations and court proceedings being fast tracked in order to ensure swifter justice. The widespread coverage that the Delhi rape case received resulted in mass protests all over the city. Had it not been for the media and the strong reaction from the masses, this case too would have been entangled in our snail paced judicial system for years to come, before the guilty would have been punished. Cases such as these show us that, when the Judiciary fails to prosecute the guilty, who are the rich and powerful, the media steps up for the delivery of justice. The Bad The critics of trial by media argue that media trials are biased and unjust and often influence the normal proceedings of the court, raising the question of a fair trial. They believe that the odds get stacked against the accused. It has also been seen that trial by media often provokes an atmosphere of public outrage and mass hysteria. There have been instances

where the accused have been attacked by volatile persons from among the audience. Two of these attacks, specifically that of DGP Rathore (of the Ruchika Case) getting stabbed in the face with a pocket knife and ex MP Suresh Kalmadi (found guilty of corruption in the Commonwealth Games Delhi 2012) getting slapped, were caught on camera by the media. It is often argued that even if the accused is acquitted by the trial court, the media trial ensures that he or she will be shunned socially and treated as an outcaste for life. Often, along with that of the accused, the privacy rights of their families and friends are encroached upon too. They too may have to bear the burden of the trial by media. The power that the media wields on the masses can be used by those with vested interests. Criminals can be portrayed as heroes and vice versa. The media is also guilty of sensationalizing certain issues. Sometimes undue attention given to issues may result in more damage to a person or a people than if it had gone unnoticed. Conclusion It may be hard to admit, but there are many instances where the Judiciary has failed to ensure justice. Hence presently even with all the cons of Trial by Media, the pros outweighs them easily. This is mainly due to our aging judicial system that has been manipulated time and again by the powerful. As long as the media exercises self regulation to a certain extent, even the critics of Media Trials will have to accept it as a necessary evil. It is imperative that we first introduce reforms to the other three pillars of democracy before we approach the subject of restriction on trials by media.