Aasia Hassan, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi
Abstract
With the coming into existence of television, cable networks, internet and social media, the publicity of offences has reached alarming proportions. This may result in innocents being condemned for no reason or the accused persons may not get the right to fair trial. Where the constitution guarantees the freedom of press, the right to fair trial or the right to life of an accused person cannot be compromised. Media is regarded as the “eyes and ears of the general public”. Trial by media has become a common norm in today’s society. Sometimes even judges are compelled to make a decision as per the public opinion which is a result of media trials. The famous Judge of American Supreme Court Cardozo J. in his book, “Nature of Judicial Process” mentions that, “The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by. Even these forces are seldom fully in consciousness. They lie so near the surface, however, that their existence with the recognition of their power. Deep below consciousness are other forces, the likes and the dislikes, the predilections and the prejudices, the complex instincts and emotion and habits and convictions, which make the man, whether he be litigant or judge... There has been a certain lack of candour in much of the discussions of the theme or rather perhaps in the refusal to discuss it, as if judges must lose respect and confidence by the reminder that they are subject to human limitations...”
Acting as public court, media starts its own investigation and forms public opinion. It can also not be denied that for the smooth functioning of a democratic society, freedom of press is necessary, but from recent times the freedom of expression is being misused and it acts as a hindrance to the right of fait trial of an accused person. This paper attempts to elaborate the media trials versus the right to fair trial. The paper also deals with the comparative study of media trials in various jurisdictions of the world, and the Indian position on Media trials.
Comments