Guilty Before The Verdict: The Law, Mind, And Society Behind India’s Media Trials
- IJLLR Journal
- 4 hours ago
- 2 min read
Manali Vyas, GLS University
1. Introduction:
“Media trial can have long lasting repercussions as it creates narratives which make a person guilty in the eyes of the public even before being convicted by a court.”
- Former CJI D.Y Chandrachud
One of the most important pillars of the criminal justice system in India is the “presumption of innocence,” which presupposes that a person is innocent until the moment when he or she is found guilty in accordance with the due process. This rule is based on the rule of law and it provides that justice is served without prejudice or consideration of popular will as a guide but rather through evidence and reason. However, in modern India, the emergence of 24-hour news, online media outlets, and social media networks has led to a new menace of media trials. Such coverage does not simply report judicial proceedings; it constructs narratives that pre-judge the accused, effectively declaring guilt prior to any legal determination.
Media trials are taking over the role of a judiciary by dramatising and presenting misunderstood facts in such a way that they portray defendants as villains, which is a contradiction to what they proclaim to defend. In a country where democracy flourishes on the solidity of the mass discourse, such an intrusion on the constitutional balance between the freedom of the press and right to a fair trial, as a condition, creates psychological prejudice and criminological effects that distort justice.
At the core of this question is a tension between two fundamental rights in the constitution. The Indian Constitution under article 19(1)(a) also provides the freedom of speech and expression as the main pillar of the free press that gives the media rights to enlighten people and question the authority. Article 21, on the other hand protects the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has always read to include the right to a fair trial. The media coverage may as well infringe upon Article 21 by infringing upon the impartiality of the judicial proceedings when it shifts to prejudice, such as reporting on exaggerated incidents or premature verdicts. This has been a conflict that has been addressed severally by the Supreme Court. Within the case of Sahara India Real Estate Corp. v. SEBI, (2012), the Court highlighted the importance of a balance between the freedom of the press and the integrity of the judiciary by noting that unrestrained media influence might incline trials. Similarly, in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) the Court criticized the involvement of the media in the Jessica Lal murder case6 by arguing that it has a potential to distort justice by creating a furor over evidence among the population.
