Media Can't Make Suggestions Of Guilt Or Innocence Of A Person Or Credibility Of Witnesses: Kerala HC
Media Cannot Influence Judicial Process: Key Principle
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the media cannot make statements or suggestions regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused or comment on the credibility of witnesses while a case is pending. Doing so violates the accused's right to a fair trial under the Constitution of India.
Constitutional Basis
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty: This includes the right to a fair and impartial trial.
Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression: This is not absolute and can be restricted to protect other rights, including the right to a fair trial.
Subordinate principle – The media must report responsibly and cannot prejudge the court’s function.
Why Media Comments Are Dangerous
Influences public perception – Media reports can shape opinions of witnesses, juries (where applicable), and the public.
Prejudices judicial proceedings – Suggesting guilt or disbelief in witnesses before trial may lead to unfair bias in courts.
Harms the accused – Even if acquitted later, the stigma of media reports can persist.
Kerala High Court Observations
No pre-trial judgment – The media cannot act as a parallel court.
Neutral reporting only – Report facts without drawing conclusions about guilt, innocence, or credibility.
Violation remedies – Courts may issue contempt notices, injunctions, or directions to restrain such reporting.
Key Case Laws on Media and Fair Trial
S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982)
Media freedom is protected under Article 19(1)(a) but cannot override other fundamental rights, including the right to fair trial.
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973)
Indian Express case: Court held media freedom is not absolute; it must balance public interest and individual rights.
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
Supreme Court emphasized right to privacy and reputation; media cannot publish material that prejudices ongoing proceedings.
Amitabh Bachchan v. Union of India (2005)
Media reports suggesting guilt before the trial were considered a violation of natural justice principles.
Kerala HC Recent Judgment (2025)
Media coverage suggesting guilt or questioning witness credibility was restrained.
HC held: “Courts alone decide guilt or innocence; media cannot act as a parallel adjudicator.”
Practical Implications for Media Houses
Avoid headlines like “X is guilty of Y” or “Witness A is lying”.
Stick to factual reporting: arrests, charges, court dates, statements made in court.
Avoid speculative commentary that could influence the case.
Principle Established
Media freedom exists, but it cannot compromise a fair trial.
Courts protect accused’s rights by restraining prejudicial publications.
Violation may invite contempt proceedings, fines, or injunctions.
✅ In short: The Kerala High Court has clearly ruled that media cannot suggest guilt or innocence or question witness credibility, as it infringes Article 21 rights of the accused and the fair trial principle. Courts alone decide matters of guilt or innocence, and media must report responsibly without influencing justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments