Guilty Until Proven Innocent: The Dynamics Of Freedom In India Media

ABSTRACT

“No man can be grateful at cost of his honour, no women can be grateful at cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of his liberty”. - Daniel O Connell

Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that goes to the very heart of individual liberty and freedom. While on the other hand, freedom of Media has been a topic of debating issue when it comes to involve the case of fair trial or the media trial. Thus the conflict between freedom of speech and expression and media trial raises questions marks that are painstakingly unanswerable. This article highlights the dynamics of freedom of press Vis-a Vis India Media.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

INTRODUCTION

“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech”- Benjamin Franklin

To preserve the democratic way of life it is essential that people should have freedom to express their views and feelings known to the people at large. India being the democratic country follows the principle of rule of law which is ineradicable principle of the civilised society. “Freedom of speech and expression is the essential ingredient of democracy. The essence of freedom of speech and expression is the ability to think, evaluate, speak freely, right to express one’s own conviction and opinions freely by either words spoken orally or in writing.”

Lord Macaulay, the member of the British Parliament had referred Media as the fourth pillar of democracy. Media is one of the foundations of democratic society. The role of media is to keep the people updated with all such happening and scenario. But the media today is not what it was then. The role of the media has not only changed but in fact it has adamantly expanded and become a source which shapes people’s opinion. Many factors have been responsible which have made the media organisations comprising the journalistic ethics. “Media within the blink of an eye has the ability to turn villain into hero through the lens which viewers perceive the event and the sound of mic is enough to destroy or create person’s position in the society. There have been many prominent examples where Media has roused the public out of their usual apathy and forced the sluggish authorities to act. But on the other hand media has always been criticised on the occasions of conducting what is called a media trial, where media has portrays the accused guilty long before the court reaches a decision. The media being a public service is supposed to act as a watchdog of the society while judiciary on the other hand has to safeguard the rights of the citizens. Both judiciary and media are important for the progress of civil society and role of media and judiciary should be independent of each other.” But however, since past few years’ media has started interfering in the court proceeding and it started the concept of investigative journalism in order to mould the opinion of public.

IS THE FREEDOM OF MEDIA SUPPRESSING THE RULE OF LAW?

“Despite the significance of the print and electronic media in the present day it is not only desirable but the least that is expected of the persons at the helm of affairs in the field, to ensure that the trial by the media does not hamper fair investigation by the investigating agency and more importantly does not prejudice the right of defence of the accused in any manner whatsoever. It will amount to travesty of injustice if either of this causes impediments in the accepted judicious and fair investigation and trial. Presumption of innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending. In that event it will be opposed to the basic rule of law and would impinge upon the protection granted to an accused under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is essential for the dignity of the courts and is one of the cardinal principle of the rule of law in democratic society that the criticism or even the reporting particularly in sub judice matters must be subjected to check and balances so as not to interfere with the administration of justice.[footnoteRef:2]” [2: Manu Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)6 S.C.C. 1 (India)]

The sudden death of the Bollywood Actor Sushant Singh Rajput sent shock waves through the country. This sudden death has brought negative result of the trial by media to light. Some of the media houses have dishonourably and openly declared Bollywood actors and actresses guilty, profusely ignoring the principle of criminal law, which is the principle of presumption of innocence. Thus it can be rightly said that media has reincarnated itself into a public court and it does not make any suggestive innuendos but direct allegations. Investigative journalism which is the new trend happens to create new problem when reporting on sensitive cases is done from a particular prism and to support a particular opinion or point of view.

Media is expected to provide impartial and unbiased facts rather than coming to any conclusion about any matter. With the increasing competitive marketing, media more often distorts the facts and sensationalize news stories to grab the attention of the general public. In R.K Anand v Delhi High Court[footnoteRef:3] the Supreme Court observed that, “The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. During high publicity cases, the media are often accused of provoking an atmosphere of public hysteria akin to lynch a mob which not only makes only fair trial impossible but means that regardless of the trial, in public perception the accused is already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life without intense public scrutiny.” [3: R.K Anand v Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 (India)]

The primary objective of media is to serve people by dissenting correct information regarding matters concerning public interest. A free media acts as a watchdog over the government and is the sole channel to connect people with the government. The media has apparent influence on the minds of the people and can mould their decisions. It may lay down an agenda for the nation and pursue it. The media has an influential impact on society that it can on no ground lose sight of its duties and obligations towards people. So they are mandated to follow ethical guidelines ensuring the authenticity of the news an impartial but decent reporting. They are also required to take into account the cascading effect of their reporting on the society and concerned individual or institutions as the case may be.

WHAT SHALL BE THE DYNAMICS OF FREEDOM OF PRESS VIS-A- VIS INDIA MEDIA

“In the country like India we consider the rights of the press to be at such level of eminence that we do not want to curtail them; no statute can curtail them, but that does not mean there is complete lawlessness; there should be self regulations”- Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

The Indian Press Commission said that, “Democracy can thrive not only under the vigilant eye of its legislature, but also under the care and guidance of public opinion and the press is par excellence, the vehicle through which the opinion can become articulate”.

Freedom of press is fundamental to a democratic society. It seeks out and circulates news, information, opinions, and ideas and holds those in authority to account. The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, regional and local level it is the public watchdog, activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary chronicler. This freedom of press is not expressly mentioned anywhere in the constitution but it is impliedly referred in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution i.e. Freedom of speech and Expression. The freedom of press is regarded as a “Species of which freedom of expression is a genius.” Thus being only a right flowing from the freedom of speech the freedom of press in India stands on no higher footing than the freedom of speech of a citizen.

In Romesh Thapar v State of Madras[footnoteRef:4] it was observed that “the freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussions no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of the popular government is possible.” [4: Romesh Thapar v State of Madras A.I.R 1950 S.C.124 (India)]

Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v Assistant Commercial Tax Officer[footnoteRef:5] the Supreme Court observed that, “the democratic form of government itself demands its citizen’s active and intelligent participation in the affairs of the company. The public discussion with people participation is the basic feature and the rational process of democracy.” [5: Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (1994) 2 S.C.C. 434 (India)]

In LIC of India v Manubhai D Shah[footnoteRef:6], it was held that, “Every Citizen has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public. Freedom to air one’s view is the lifeline of any democratic institutions and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound death knell to democracy and would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship.” [6: LIC of India v Manubhai D Shah A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 171 (India)]

In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India[footnoteRef:7] Justice Bhagwati has highlighted on the importance of the Freedom of speech and expression as under; [7: Maneka Gandhi v Union of India A.I R 1978 S.C. 597]

“Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussions, for that are the only corrective of government action in a democratic setup. If democracy means government of the people, by the people it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his right of making choice, free and general discussion of pubic matters is absolutely essential.”

The Supreme Court of India has made emphasis with regard to the significance of maintaining freedom of press in a democratic society. “The media tends to serve the public interest by making them aware of the facts and happening by way of publications without which the general public cannot make responsible judgements. It is therefore the primary duties of the courts to uphold the said freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with the freedom of the press contrary to the constitutional mandate.”[footnoteRef:8] [8: Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India A.I.R 1986 S.C.515]

CONCLUSION

Media must show conscious efforts towards responsibilities to the public which they should elevate by building public trust and confidence about their trustworthiness and should follow the ethics to assert its reliability beyond any speculation.

The importance of a free press and a strong media in a true democracy is undeniable. No democracy can work without an effective media in place. The media has lot of power and if this power is misused it can severely harm a nation. No external body can be set up to check the media professionals and ensure that they are not doing harm than good. Freedom should not be absolute and the rule of law ensures that nobody has arbitrary power applies to the media as well. There should be some reasonable restrictions on Media so that it does not infringe other’s right and court should be the one laying down the Lakshman Rekha on the Media that should not be crossed.