What Emulates to ‘Media Trials?’ Explain Bombay High Court

What emulates to ‘media trials?’ Explain Bombay High Court

The division bench of Chief Justice Dipankat Dutta and Justice GS Kulkarni of Bombay High Court gave a list of guidelines in a 251-paged verdict on a bundle of PILs relating to ‘media trials’ in the Sushant Singh Rajput death case. The Court directed the press/media to exercise restraint and refrain from printing/displaying any news item and/or initiating any discussion/debate/interview while reporting on certain cases or at a particular stage of the investigation.


The Court noted that the media ought to avoid reports touching upon an ongoing investigation and present facts which are in public interest rather than “what, according to the media, the public is interested in.”

The Court directed the press/media to exercise restraint and refrain from printing/displaying any news item and/or initiating any discussion/debate/interview of the nature, as indicated hereunder:

  1.  In relation to death by suicide, depicting the deceased as one having a weak character or intruding in any manner on the privacy of the deceased;
  2. That causes prejudice to an ongoing inquiry/investigation by: i.
  3. Referring to the character of the accused/victim and creating an atmosphere of prejudice for both;
  4. Holding interviews with the victim, the witnesses and/or any of their family members and displaying it on screen;
  5. Analyzing versions of witnesses, whose evidence could be vital at the stage of trial;
  6. Publishing a confession allegedly made to a police officer by an accused and trying to make the public believe that the same is a piece of evidence which is admissible before a Court and there is no reason for the Court not to act upon it, without letting the public know the nitty-gritty of the Evidence Act, 1872;
  7. Printing photographs of an accused and thereby facilitating his identification;
  8. Criticizing the investigative agency based on half-baked information without proper research;
  9. Pronouncing on the merits of the case, including pre-judging the guilt or innocence qua an accused or an individual not yet wanted in a case, as the case may be;
  10. Recreating/reconstructing a crime scene and depicting how the accused committed the crime;
  11. Predicting the proposed/future course of action including steps that ought to be taken in a particular direction to complete the investigation; and
  12. Leaking sensitive and confidential information from materials collected by the investigating agency;
  13. Acting in any manner so as to violate the provisions of the Programme Code as prescribed under section 5 of the CTVN Act read with rule 6 of the CTVN Rules and thereby inviting contempt of court; and
  14.  Indulging in character assassination of any individual and thereby mar his reputation.

The Court however said that these are not intended to be exhaustive but indicative, and any report carried by the print media or a programme telecast by a TV channel, live or recorded, ought to be such so as to conform to the Programme Code, the norms of journalistic standards and the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Regulations; in default thereof, apart from action that could be taken under the prevailing regulatory mechanism, the erring media house could make itself liable to face an action in contempt, i.e., criminal contempt within the meaning of section 2(c) of the CoC Act which, as and when initiated, would obviously have to be decided by the competent court on its own merits and in accordance with law.

“The erring media house could make itself liable to face an action in contempt, i.e., criminal contempt within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act which, as and when initiated, would obviously have to be decided by the competent court on its own merits and in accordance with law.” the court noted.

In course of hearing, the Court had illustrated as to how unregulated media reporting could adversely affect investigations that are in progress and requested learned counsel appearing for the respondents to respond. Quite naturally, we were greeted with meek responses. All the learned counsel opposing the writ petitions could not have disputed and did not in fact dispute the consequences that could ensue upon constant media coverage in respect of an on-going investigation.

Advertisement

What was illustrated by the Court, in concise form, is as follows:

1. Impact, qua the accused, is that, he could be put on guard. If an accused is not being trailed by the police, it does not mean that the investigator is turning a blind eye towards him. The essence of a police investigation is skillful inquiry and collection of material and evidence in a manner by which the potential culpable individuals are not forewarned. Because of unnecessary meddling by the media, the accused can destroy evidence and avoid arrest by absconding, making the task of the investigator difficult in searching for the truth.

2. Impact, qua an innocent person, if he were projected as an accused along with the principal accused and hounded by the investigator based on media reporting, is that he stands the risk of his reputation, built up on years of sincere efforts and good work, being damaged beyond imagination and may, in rare cases, lead to suicide or attempts in relation thereto. It does not take much timefor the viewers of the media report to forget the past good deeds of such person and to accept as gospel truth what has been reported by the media, but insofar as the targeted individual is concerned, the loss, injury and prejudice could be irreparable. This would be against a just social order.

3. Impact, qua a vital witness, is that he could be won over, threatened or even physically harmed to ensure that he does not tender evidence. Nothing can be more damaging in the pursuit of truth if a vital witness does not turn up for tendering evidence or even if he turns up, is declared hostile by the prosecution for reasons too obvious. The prosecution theory would fall into pieces, unless of course there is other credible evidence to nail the accused.

4. Impact, qua the investigator, could be equally pernicious and cause miscarriage of justice. On account of human failing, the investigator could be influenced by the media reports; although he may be following a particular track, which in fact is the right track, he could abandon the right track and follow a different track leading him to nowhere. On the contrary, if the investigator instead of changing tracks as suggested by the media follows the track chosen by him, he could be maligned by the media and accused of improper investigation creating an adverse opinion in the minds of the viewers which, in any circumstance, is undesirable and unwarranted.

5. Impact, qua the investigation, is that publicity in respect of certain aspects of a case by media reporting that the investigator is indulging in secrecy can hamper the course of due investigation. Although trials in court are open proceedings to which each member of the public can have access unless proceedings are held in-camera, there is no law requiring the investigator to conduct investigation openly and to lay before the public, at different stages of investigation, evidence that he has collected in course thereof.

What emulates to ‘media trials?’ Explain Bombay High Court

Also Read: WhatsApp Messages Will Have No Evidentiary Value Unless They Are Certified As Per Section 65B Of The Indian Evidence Act: P&H High Court

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *