Latest News
Back
REVIEW ON SOCIAL MEDIA TRIALS
Media is regarded as one of the pillars of the democracy. Media has wide-ranging roles in society. From the very first newspaper called as ‘acta diruna’ being published in Rome during 59BC to the modern era of television news and social media has come a news long way upholding his promise to strengthen the judiciary in the spirit of the democracy all over the world. Whereas Judiciary holds the key responsibility to deliver Justice. Both are having their functions and they are very important at their place. But the conflict starts when both are not able to balance themselves. Media plays a very vital role in moulding the opinion of society and it can change the thinking of the person completely. The person starts thinking in the same way as the media is trying to show them. If, media is applying their mind in some case and giving their decision that it will be so or it can happen then that is not the judicial mind and when Judges go through it then somewhere it affects the decision of the judges too. Media intervention in judicial affairs is becoming very normal in society. Some of the famous cases Jessica Lal Murder Case where media keep digging about the piece of evidence and finally the case is solved. Further, even though media helps the society in getting justice but sometimes media seen in the money-making business.
Trial by media is regarded as a necessary evil and even media is the one who acts as a watchdog for the society. But now the media is so sensualized that they do most of the things for TRP’s and salaries. Now, the reporters are on that edge they show that news for what they are paid off by the political parties or by the celebrities. The media should not be free handed in the court proceeding as they can take any information and trying to mould it or trying to make it a piece of breaking news. As media should be control by the court. Only that such information should be given to media which is important and from which there is no contempt of court arise.
If the media will react like this then it will be said that the media is committing a crime because if any person has not done anything and then that person is being defamed or punished then there can be nothing worse than this. However, the parties to the litigation have a constitutional right to have a fair trial in the court of law by an impartial tribunal free and fair and uninfluenced by any pressure. This right of the fair trial may defect if the media while reporting a matter use such a language which may have an effect to influence the mind of a judge and to control the judicial processes.
As, there were many cases of the Supreme Court in which it is clearly said that there should be a balance between the Media and the Judiciary. The cases are as follows-
- Supreme Court has strongly deprecated the media for interfering with the administration of justice by publishing only one side material and telling that party to be true and trying to change the viewpoint of not just the society but of the court too. Pointing out that the article was a one-sided version of the case, N. Santosh Hedge Justice said that the facts said therein are materials that may be used in the future trial in this case and that this type of article appearing in the media would certainly interfere with the administration of justice.
- In Saibal Kumar Vs. B.K Sen [i] the Supreme Court said that there should be no involvement of the media. As it affects the judgement of the Court should be competence, impartial, and fair but judges are also human beings and when they will see all these things on media it will make a view in their mind too as like the society have. So, till the time judgement is not given there should be no discussion on the case. In the United States, the judiciary has been of the view that the court cannot function properly if a reporting is investigated to disturb the judicial mind.
- In M.P Lohia Vs. State of West Bengal the supreme court has strongly deprecated the media for interfering with the administration of justice by publishing only one-sided article touching of the merits of the cases pending in the courts.
- In Rajagopal v. State of T.N[ii], the Supreme Court held that media should not interfere in the cases of public issues and events. But further, it is said that proper balance should be maintained between the freedom of the press and the right to privacy. As nothing should be violated in any manner both are important of the balanced society.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is the moral duty of the media to show the truth to society not what that specific person wants to show it to the world. The media cannot be allowed freedom of speech and expression to an extent that it prejudices the trial itself.
