By Gaurangi Kaushik
The NorthCap University
“The More the Merrier…”
It would be fairly safe to surmise that we all have apprehended the phrase “the more the merrier” time and again. Not only that, we have seen its literal and rather undeviating implementation in our habitual lives. From countless smartphone alternatives to now two independent organs of the state. Conventionally, the judiciary exercises all its jurisdictions as an independent body and authority and as of late, we find the media keen on spreading its wings into the courtrooms of the country. In the present climate, media trial has become a very symphonious set of words to our ears. We find ourselves fairly accustomed to hearing this phrase since the 14th of June of 2020. However, media trial is not a novel concept as far as the Indian media is concerned, and has unequivocally endured and prevailed within the nation even prior to the aired dissection of all things Rhea Chakroborty.
The Underlying Element of Article 14, In the Implementation of Article 19
The question then arises not merely of a fundamental right guaranteed to us by the constitution of India in Article 19, freedom of speech, but also that of equality before law as mentioned in yet another fundamental right, Article 14. How is it that every citizen of this nation finds him/her or itself exercising the fundamental right of freedom of speech, yet the Media collectively is socially prohibited from employing the corresponding. Where does article 14, the right to equality lie in a state of affairs wherein the media itself is unable to precisely convey its judgements and school of thought.
The Indistinct Boundaries of Journalistic Freedom of Speech
It becomes crucial in such a circumstance to suitably comprehend the stipulations of freedom of speech. Journalistically speaking, an implication of freedom of speech reveals that activities must be guided by ethical conduct. An established and acknowledged concept of law rightfully states “innocent until proven guilty” which may also be termed as the presumption of innocence. Further, the court tends to pursue a pivotal paradigm, known as “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”. Under such a criterion, there must not exist any other logical explanation except for the fact that the defendant has certainly committed the crime. Without such reassurance, the defendant may not be held liable. Journalistic ethical conduct in such a situation would imply respecting not only the reputation of the defendant but the universal doctrine of natural justice at the very least.
The role of the media in the enjoyment of Article 19, freedom of speech, is primarily concerned with the bias of media towards the governments and the involvement of the latter with the former. Herewith, journalistic activities must not be intended towards disproportionately presenting matters in the favour of a party concerned, and must certainly not be influenced or imposed by the State. The freedom of speech of the media does not however correlate to excessive publicity, invasion of private rights, and the presumption of guilt as opposed to innocence- the purest definition of a media trial. When we speak in favour of the media trial, we aim at not conducting any breach of the media’s legal rights. Having said that, we must also ensure that the right to a fair trial in the process of ensuring justice is obtainable to all defendants.
Under which implication does the media presume that the right to be free from the involvement of the state directly corresponds to publicly pronouncing defendants guilty even prior to the dates of their courtroom hearing? Rather, why does the media believe it has the license to decide on the facts of a case while the sovereign organ of the state, namely the judiciary, securely deduces the final verdict? We don’t see the judiciary asking what the nation wants to know.
“Familiarity does not breed Contempt; Familiarity is Contempt”
The media acts as a highly influential pillar of democracy. It is capable of not only influencing the sentiments of the general public but also overturning them all together. The media may be held answerable for sowing the seeds of a tendency or commencing an uprising. Either way, it is the right of the general public to remain in fashion regarding all matters of citizenry concern. The media in such an environment plays a cardinal role, in providing the same public with a truthful account of events, in order to facilitate the formulation of their own outlook. The freedom of speech, be it of the collective media or for individuals at large, is not an absolute freedom and is subject to a variety of exceptions as mentioned in sub-clause 2 of Article 19. Article 19 palpably does not enclasp the freedom to commit contempt of court.
The media has time and again conducted this contempt of court whilst considering themselves to be the “Janta Adalat”. Be it the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, Jessica Lal case, or the Bijal Joshi rape case- the media has been employing sterling disrespect and disobedience by defying the authority and dignity of the court through pronouncing judgements for ongoing trials, the demeanour of which lies entirely out of the media’s jurisdiction.
“The Road Not Taken”…an Alternative Stance from a Divergent Perspective
As far as the rights of the defendant are concerned, the media through the practice of its own delusional conception of ‘freedom of speech’ per se, proceeds to further violate the rights of a defendant during criminal trials. Primarily, our constitution, like many others, is based on the fundamental doctrine that precisely states “Let Hundreds Go Unpunished, But Never Punish An Innocent Person”. Through the self-diagnostic ways of the media, not only are they violating the right of the defendant of free and fair trial but also depriving him or her of the right to privacy. All of which are constitutionally guaranteed to all citizens of this country.
“…The Fewer, The Better Fare”
Whilst we aim to protect and promote a vaguely understood right of the media, let us predominantly understand that wherever there is a right, there exists a duty. A duty to respect the rights of another. Which suggests that through no conduct of ours must we breach their rights. Although the media at large is entitled to Article 19, the right to freedom of speech, the presumed enjoyment of this very article must not interfere with the administration and discharge of justice, at any expense. The drafting committee of the constitution has very conscientiously laid out the duties, responsibilities, and provisions of the various organs of the state. Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves by overlapping our duties and functions in the name of constitutional elements. Owing to the fact that, when we say “the more the merrier”, “the fewer, the better fare” is often silent. The judiciary was and shall always remain an independent organ and the only determinant authority within the premises of India, that is Bharat.
Get Legal 