Introduction

Media once showed the strength and unity of the Indians to our colonizers and drove them away. It was our press and the newspapers which united the whole of India to fight for the freedom of its motherland. It was then realized that media and press are a vital part of our lives and should be given to flourish and mirror the truth that our nations need to see.

Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution provides freedom of speech and expression. Since the press and media and the citizens were seen as one, therefore, no special freedom or provision was cited for the same. In the case of Romesh Thapper v. The State of Madras1, the Court held that "Freedom of speech and the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organization, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible." This secured freedom of speech and expression for the press and media.

However, the media/ press which were considered a boon have proven to be otherwise in recent times. There has been an infringement of privacy and leakage of personal data affecting both the parties involved in the case and the decision-making bodies as well. Media with its strong opinion based on incomplete facts of the case has been molding the perception of the citizens in the direction they so wish and foresee to gain the most of the benefit from the case. In the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms2, it was held that "One -Sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Freedom of Speech and expression includes right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold opinions."

What is Media Trial?

Media Trial can be described as a trial held by the media based on their findings, opinion, and knowledge. These trials do not acknowledge the difference between the accused and the convicted but rather portray the accused as a convict who has committed the crime. Often such trials become a debating topic for people to share their point of view without proper facts and figures leading to infringement of the privacy of both the victim and the accused. These trials are biased and motivated toward increasing the TRP of the particular media or entertainment platform without putting any thought into the consequences.

Section Article 21 which states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to those procedures established by law", is violated quite often during media trials when personal details, photographs, and evidence are released by such platforms. Along with this Section 66E of the IT Act, 2000 clearly states that any person who is publishing, or capturing any private photograph without the consent of the said person in question has committed a crime. Regardless of such laws, these acts are carried out by the media in the name of press freedom, resulting in judicature jeopardy.

In the recent case of Aryan Khan, where he was taken into custody for possession and consumption of drugs, the media played a crucial role in dissecting the character and image of him along with his family declaring him a convict. The entire nation was raged by the headlines being published by the media houses without any solid proof or document from any reliable source. The media created a negative image of the accused in the minds of thousands of people leading to defamation and harassment of him along with his family. Only to later find out that he has been given a clean chit by the government in the cases he was accused of.

Aryan Khan was not the first such case in India. One such case is Sarvjeet Singh v. Jasleen Kaur. This heart-wrenching case is a perfect example of the Media Trials being unfair and biased. Sarvjeet Singh was accused of molestation and eve-teasing by Jasleen Kaur. Thereafter, the series of media trials began announcing Sarvjeet Singh as "Delhi ka Darinda". This innocent man fell prey to the vicious trap of the media, which lead to him losing his job along with the right to live a normal life. When justice was served to him four years later, the media then was not at the forefront to show the reality. His story came to the limelight only when he decided to speak the truth on the platform of TedX.

Consequences of Media Trial

  1. Defamation of the accused along with the family because of the portrayal of misinformation.
  2. Accused in most cases end up losing their careers with almost little to no hope of restarting them.
  3. The social standing of the accused falls with people not accepting them for who they are but rather still seeing them as they were portrayed in the media.
  4. Such Trials lead to mental harassment of the accused which cannot be compensated with any kind of monetary or other modes of compensation.
  5. The difference between accused and convicted is overlooked in such trials resulting in formation of prejudice by the nation towards the accused.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that we need stricter and more refined laws on the freedom of media and press to resolve such issues in the future. Freedom of one cannot be at the cost of life, morality, and character of the other. With new laws, we may be able to protect the rights and privacy of the citizen of the country.

Footnotes

1. Romesh Thapper v. Union Of India, A.I.R 1950 SC 124

2. Union of India v. Association of Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCR 294

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.