Media Trial - An Analysis of Various Judgments in the light of Actor Dileep’s verdict.

In this rapidly evolving world, society is developing at a rapid pace. The increased use of Artificial intelligence and its growth has not only affected the day-to-day affairs of the people, but also the government and the judiciary.

Nowadays, an individual begins their day by engaging in Social media. The rapid growth of Social media influencers and destroyed the individual thinking capacity of a person. Even the food culture of an individual is decided by food vloggers.  

Media Trial refers to the high-profile legal cases that receive extensive media coverage and social media campaigns. The over-involvement of the media creates massive decision-making, which creates a prejudiced mind in the entire judicial process.

Recently, in the case of Dileep’s Verdict, the media and the vloggers are reacting before publishing the Judgment. Their guesswork and hidden interest, and exaggerated opinions tempt the individual's thought process and radical reasoning. Each media is creating there own story which suits its sensational criteria and public viewership. From celebrity scandals to politically charged prosecutions, media trials have the potential to shape public perception, influence judicial processes, and impact societal attitudes toward justice and fairness.

In India, when we search for the historical roots of the media trial, we can see that the K M Nanavati case is one of the earliest sensational media trials, which involves the trial of a naval officer, K M Nanavati, who shot his wife’s lover, and the same attracted unprecedented media attention and public interest. The case was initially tried by a jury, which returned a not guilty verdict. But the high court convicts him for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the Supreme Court upholds the conviction but reduces the sentence. The jury system was abolished in India as a result of this case, as it was perceived to be influenced by the media and public pressure.  

In Mohammed Ajmal Mohammand Amir Kasab V. State of Maharastra: AIR 2012 SC 3565 the supreme court in an important observation, although by way of obiter, regarding the role of media in live electronic coverage of terrorist attacks on Taj Hotel, Hotel Oberoi and Nariman House and shown on TV Screens State- The Terrorists attacks at all places, in the goriest details were shown live on the Indian TV from beginning to end almost non-stop in which almost all the channels were competing with each other in showing the latest details on minute to minute basis. This reckless coverage gave rise to a situation where on the one hand terrorist were completely hidden from the security forces and they had no means to know their exacts position or even the kind of fire arms and explosives they possess and on the other hand, the position of the security forces, their weapons and all their operational movements were being watched by the collaborators across the border on the TV Screen and being communicated to the terrorists.

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd V. SEBI(AIR 2012 SC 3829)-  During the pendency of the litigation, a personal letter was addressed by the counsel of Sahara to the counsel of SEBI enclosing a proposal together with a valuation certificate, which is a precondition for the stay of the impugned orders in the pending appeal. In this case, a day prior to the hearing of the appeal, one of the news channels flashed on TV the details of the proposal which had been communicated only inter parties, not meant for public circulation. The channel also names the valuator who has done the valuation. The Supreme Court expressed its distress that even letters marked “Without prejudice” were also being reported. Then the Court held that all courts which have inherent powers can issue prior restraint orders or prohibitory orders in exceptional circumstances temporarily prohibiting publication of court proceedings, and such powers do not violate Article 19(1)(a).

Virendra V., state of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896, the SC held that the freedom of the press under our constitution is not higher than that of an individual.

Dejo Kappan V. Deccan Herald and others, 2024 (7 )KHC 137 – The KHC held that In the case of a conflict arising between the right of the media to freedom of Speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right of an individual to his/her dignity or reputation under Article 21, the former has to be seen as controlled not only by the latter, but also by the ideas, values, concepts and fundamental duties recognized under the constitution which are equally binding on the media. The court further held that, in the context of the reporting facts relating to criminal investigations or cases pending adjudication before the various adjudicatory forums, the right of the media to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) would be further delimited by their obligation to defer to the principle of separation of powers recognized under the Constitution. The said principle, coupled with the concept of the rule of law, mandates that the final and authoritative determination of guilt or innocence can be pronounced only by a judicial authority. Therefore, the expression by the media of any definitive opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of a party in a criminal investigation or a case pending adjudication, before an authoritative pronouncement is made by the adjudicatory forum concerned, would not get the protection under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, during Constituent Assembly debates on inclusion of the press in proposed Article 13 (Article 19) on freedom of speech and expression of the Draft Constitution, 1948, stated that the press has no special rights which are not to be given or which are not to be exercised by the citizen in his individual capacity.

The relevant portion is extracted hereunder - “7.65.168 B.R. Ambedkar: The press is merely another way of stating an individual or a citizen. The press has no special rights which are not to be given or which are not to be exercised by the citizen in his individual capacity. The editor of a press or the manager is all citizens, and therefore, when they choose to write in newspapers, they are merely exercising their right of expression, and in my judgment, therefore, no special mention is necessary of the freedom of the press at all.

It is submitted that the strong demands to encode freedom of the press within Article 19 (1) (a), were defeated because the framers did not see the Press as a separate category.