TRIAL BY MEDIA AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN INDIA

Introduction

The relationship between media coverage and criminal justice has raised serious issues for both legal scholars and practitioners in the era of round-the-clock news cycles and pervasive social media presence. The “trial by media” phenomenon has become a serious threat to the right to a fair trial, which is one of the cornerstones of legal systems around the world. When media outlets provide extensive coverage of criminal cases, frequently accompanied by speculative reporting and prejudiced commentary, they risk creating a parallel court of public opinion that could ultimately affect formal legal procedures. The media’s influence on law has become increasingly pronounced in this context.

Historical Development

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the term “trial by media” became popular to describe how media coverage on television and in newspapers can damage a person’s reputation by generating public opinions about guilt or innocence either before or after a court decision. The concept was first popularized as “Trial by Television” following the February 1967 episode of “The Frost Programme,” in which host David Frost questioned insurance fraudster Emil Savundra in an adversarial manner, raising questions about whether the accused’s right to a fair trial would be compromised.^[1]

The notion that popular media can affect court cases extends back to the invention of the printing press and predates both contemporary television and digital media. However, in recent decades, this phenomenon has become much more intense due to the accelerated pace of media cycles and the proliferation of news outlets. High-profile cases nowadays frequently garner extensive coverage across a variety of platforms, resulting in what some legal scholars refer to as “a lynch mob-like atmosphere of public hysteria.”

Defining Trial by Media

Trial by media refers to the phenomenon where media outlets—particularly news channels and newspapers—intensely cover legal cases, often adopting the roles of investigator, prosecutor, and judge simultaneously.^[2] This extensive coverage creates public perceptions about the guilt or innocence of the accused before the judiciary has delivered its verdict. In this process, the lines between reporting facts and sensationalizing stories frequently blur, leading to prejudiced views and potentially influencing the legal process itself.

The media is sometimes accused of inciting public hysteria during high-profile court trials, which not only makes it more difficult to secure a fair trial but also ensures that the accused will be under constant public scrutiny for the rest of their life, regardless of the trial’s verdict. This issue is especially troubling in situations involving well-known people, as irrelevant information may taint the jury’s or the public’s impartiality.

Constitutional Safeguards

The right to a fair trial stands as one of the cornerstones of modern legal systems worldwide. In India, this right derives from Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.^[3] This fundamental right encompasses several key principles, including the presumption of innocence, the right to legal representation, and the right to be tried by an impartial tribunal.

Internationally, the right to a fair trial is enshrined in various human rights instruments. Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” Similarly, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) elaborates on the components of a fair trial.^[4]

At the heart of fair trial guarantees lies the presumption of innocence—the principle that individuals are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence serves as a safeguard against arbitrary prosecution and requires that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. The criminal jurisprudence followed in India is explicitly based on the theory that an accused is entitled to a fair trial and is innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Pre-emptive limits on the media run against the “soul of justice,” even though we have witnessed the dangers of media overreach on many occasions.^[5] The Supreme Court declined to establish any general rules for media coverage in the Sahara case, thereby upholding the principle of open justice. Nevertheless, pretrial publicity can significantly jeopardize the foundational principle of innocence by forming widespread public perception of guilt, potentially influencing judicial outcomes.^[6]

Media Trials and Their Impact on Justice

Media trials pose several threats to the integrity of judicial proceedings. When news outlets engage in extensive coverage of cases, they risk influencing both public opinion and judicial decision-making. The extensive coverage of witness interviews, victim testimonies, and comments from legal experts may prejudice trial proceedings and judicial thinking. The impact extends beyond public perception to potentially affect the administration of justice itself.

Media activism can impose indirect pressure on adjudicating authorities to deliver justice to victims, which may interfere with trial proceedings and prejudice the accused’s chance of proving innocence. This creates a challenging scenario where judges might face indirect pressure from media coverage and public opinion, potentially compromising their impartiality. When media coverage appears to pre-judge case outcomes, it risks eroding public confidence in the judiciary. The legal system must maintain a delicate balance between the public’s right to information and the necessity of ensuring fair proceedings.^[7]

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasized that the administration of justice is affected by media trials. In recent pronouncements, the Court has highlighted the need to determine at which stage of investigation details should be disclosed, recognizing that this issue involves the interests of victims, accused persons, and the public at large.^[8]

Landmark Cases and Judicial Responses

One of the most significant cases addressing media influence on fair trials is Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. The case examined whether Sam Sheppard, convicted of second-degree murder for his wife’s death, was denied a fair trial due to the trial judge’s failure to protect him from “massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity.”^[9] The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Sheppard’s favor, finding that he did not receive a fair trial due to media interference.^[10] This case established important precedents regarding the responsibility of courts to protect defendants from prejudicial publicity and highlighted the tension between press freedom and fair trial rights.

Indian Judicial Perspectives

The Indian judiciary has addressed media trials through several important cases. In Saibal Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. B.K. Sen and Anr. (1961), the Supreme Court held that newspaper investigations during ongoing trials could interfere with the course of justice, whether prejudicing the accused or the prosecution.^[11]

In the Sushant Singh Rajput Case (2020), the Bombay High Court noted that media trials interfered with the investigation and administration of justice when the actor’s girlfriend faced relentless media scrutiny and character assassination following his death.^[12]

Balancing Media Freedom with Fair Trial Rights

The tension between freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial presents a significant constitutional challenge. While media freedom is essential for democratic functioning and transparency, it must be exercised responsibly to avoid compromising judicial integrity. The media serves as an essential pillar of democracy by ensuring transparency and accountability. However, when media coverage extends beyond reporting facts to sensationalizing stories or making prejudicial statements about ongoing cases, it risks undermining the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

Responsible Journalism

Ethical journalism plays a crucial role in addressing the challenges posed by media trials. Adherence to legal guidelines and respect for the judicial process are essential to prevent media coverage from compromising justice. Journalists must recognize their responsibility to report accurately and fairly, avoiding speculation and sensationalism that could prejudice legal proceedings. The Supreme Court has emphasized that while people have the right to access information, the premature revelation of important evidence during investigations may compromise the investigation itself.

Conclusion

The phenomenon of trial by media presents significant challenges to the fair administration of justice. While media freedom is essential for democratic functioning and public accountability, its exercise must be balanced against the equally important right to a fair trial. As the Supreme Court of India has emphasized, “administration of justice is affected by media trials,” highlighting the need for guidelines to navigate this complex intersection.

Moving forward requires multi-faceted solutions involving judicial initiatives, media self-regulation, and public education. The Supreme Court’s directive to develop guidelines for police press briefings represents an important step toward addressing these challenges. Similarly, media organizations must embrace responsible reporting practices that respect both the public’s right to information and accused persons’ right to fair proceedings.

The legal community also bears responsibility for educating the public about the importance of preserving fair trial rights and the potential harms of trial by media. By fostering greater understanding of these issues, we can work toward a media environment that informs the public without compromising the integrity of judicial processes. As technology continues to evolve and media platforms multiply, the challenges surrounding trial by media will likely grow more complex. Addressing these challenges requires ongoing dialogue among legal professionals, media practitioners, and policymakers to develop frameworks that protect fair trial rights while preserving press freedom in our increasingly connected world.

 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Suzanne Christie, ‘Trial by Media: Politics, Policy and Public Opinion, the Case of the ACT Heroin Trial’ (1998) 10(1) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 37.

[2] Aishwarya Agrawal, ‘Media Trial and Judiciary’ (LawBhoomi, 31 July 2024) <https://lawbhoomi.com/media-trial-and-judiciary/> accessed 11 May 2025.

[3] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.

[4] National District Attorneys Association, ‘Understanding Pretrial Publicity: An Overview for Journalists’ (NDAA, 2024) <https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/MEDIA-Handout-Understanding-Pretrial-Publicity.pdf> accessed 11 May 2025.

[5] Nyaaya, ‘Rules of Court Reporting: What Can the Media Cover and What It Can’t’ (Nyaaya, 2 June 2023) <https://nyaaya.org/nyaaya-weekly/rules-of-court-reporting-what-can-the-media-cover-and-what-it-cant/> accessed 11 May 2025.

[6] Surekha Vitthal Bhosale, ‘A Critical Analysis of Media Trial and Its Effect on Indian Judiciary’ (2022) 9(4) Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research a619–a624 <https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2204078.pdf> accessed 11 May 2025.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Supra note 5.

[9] Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333 (1966).

[10] Ashish Kumar Bhargava, ‘Supreme Court Cracks Down On “Media Trials”, Wants Guidelines In 3 Months’ (NDTV, 13 September 2023) <https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/supreme-court-media-trials-police-guidelines-supreme-court-cracks-down-on-media-trials-wants-guidelines-in-3-months-4385927> accessed 11 May 2025.

[11] Saibal Kumar Gupta & Ors v. B.K. Sen & Anr. [1961] INSC 12.

[12] Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India AIR 2021 Bom 14.