Media Trial: Is It Fair?

Harshkumar Pendharkar, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

ABSTRACT

Media trials are becoming increasingly common in the twenty-first century, with the media playing an important role in shaping public perception and influencing high-profile cases. The Indian Criminal Justice System strives for a free and fair trial, based on the 'Presumption of Innocence'. However, biassed and erroneous reporting consistently weakens media independence. As the “Nirbhaya Gang Rape case” demonstrates, media attention to a crime does not automatically imply that justice will be served. The ultimate goal is to resolve media involvement in the legal system, and the media's commitment to impartial reporting is critical. Judicial precedents that have been established to uphold the fundamental idea of law, ensuring that the fourth pillar of democracy does not overstep its bounds while upholding other pillars. Contempt of court is held accountable when media actions undermine the idea of a fair trial. Parallel trials are discouraged in the first place because they have the potential to destroy the accused's reputation or career before the court finds them guilty. Article 61 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights safeguard the media's right to gather and disseminate information. Judges are also influenced by media trials, as evidenced by the instances of H. Shephard v. Maxwell2 and Attorney General v. British Broadcasting Corporation.3 The Madrid Principles seek to establish rules for the relationship between free expression and judicial independence, as well as the connection between the media and judicial independence. The fundamental concepts articulated include the right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a)4, press freedom, and the impact of media on judges' attitudes and public perception.