What separates the judicial system from the individual sense of justice is that the judicial system
is free from any biases, prejudices, and malformed opinions. However, the judiciary might come
under external pressure exerted on it by public opinion. “Innocent until proven guilty”- this
doctrine of criminal law might turn on its head and become “Guilty until proven innocent”. As
such a revered doctrine of law gets impeded, then the rule of law and the right to fair trial gets
obstructed.
Our constitution has ensured the fundamental right to freedom of the press under Article 39(2),
subject to any "reasonable restrictions" imposed by law in the interests of state security, friendly
relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or about contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offense. Which means freedom of the press is not absolute, and
it does not empower the media to conduct a public trial.
The right to a fair trial has been enshrined in article 35(3) of the Constitution. It ensured the right
to a speedy and public trial by an independent and impartial Court or tribunal of law. There are
also provisions under other statutes safeguarding the impartiality of the court of law and the
integrity of the trial such as prohibitions for journalists from publishing influential comments or
opinions on an under-trial case, until the final verdict is announced (Rule 16, The Code of
Conduct, 1993). Prohibitions against disclosing the identity of the victim of certain criminal cases
are also stated in several laws of our country such as section 14(1) of the Suppression of
Oppression of Women and Children Act, 2000 which prohibits the publication of the name of a
victim of sexual offence.
A fundamental principle behind the right to a fair trial is the presumption of innocence until
proven guilty. The burden of proof lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its
existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular
person (Section 103, The Evidence Act, 1872). In criminal cases, that burden lies on the
prosecution and the prosecution holds the responsibility of proving the offense beyond every
reasonable doubt. The accused may also receive an exemption in the criminal proceedings.
Convicting the accused in unauthorized media trials before the court verdict can create prior
perceptions of guilt or innocence, adversely affecting a judge’s decision and impeding the right
of the accused to face a free and fair trial.
Media is the fourth pillar of a democratic state. Media activism plays a key role in forming public
opinions on various socio-political issues. Lord Denning described the press as “Watchdog of
Justice”. But when it comes to the judiciary of our country, excessive involvement of the media
gets in the way of conducting a fair and proper legal proceeding of cases involving public
curiosity. Ultimately the impartiality of the court can get affected due to the public unrest against
the accused. Unbridled media coverage can lead to a conflict between the right to a fair trial and
freedom of the press, obscuring the transparency and fairness of the trial.
It can be inferred from the preceding discussion that media trial exerts a negative impact on the
rule of law. Proper rules and regulations are required to assert certain limitations to the media
on case coverage. Also people need to think reasonably before believing anything circulating on
social media. The court can also exercise contempt procedures against media interference.
Hence, a regulated media is integral for a fair and impartial judiciary.
