Role Of Media In Shaping Criminal Trials And Public Perception
🏛️ I. Introduction: Role of Media in Criminal Trials
The media plays a dual role in criminal justice:
Positive Role:
Helps in transparency, informing the public about ongoing investigations and trials.
Acts as a watchdog against police excesses or judicial delays.
Negative Role:
Sensational reporting can create trial by media, influencing public opinion and potentially prejudicing judicial proceedings.
Can compromise the right to a fair trial (Article 21 of the Constitution).
Thus, the constitutional tension arises between:
Freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a))
Right to a fair trial (Articles 14 and 21)
⚖️ II. Key Case Laws
1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950 SCR 594)
Facts:
The state attempted to restrict the circulation of a journal critical of government policies.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that freedom of the press is integral to democracy. Media has the right to report on matters of public interest, including criminal trials.
Relevance:
While this case predates modern trial-by-media concerns, it establishes that media reporting is constitutionally protected, but this protection is not absolute when it interferes with judicial fairness.
2. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012) 10 SCC 603
Facts:
The Supreme Court addressed media reporting on court proceedings, emphasizing responsible reporting in sensitive cases.
Held:
Media must report accurately and without sensationalism.
Courts recognized that media coverage can influence public perception and prejudice ongoing trials.
Principle:
Responsible journalism is necessary to balance public interest with fair trial rights. Though this case mainly concerns civil proceedings, the principles extend to criminal trials.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1989 2 SCC 166)
Facts:
The accused was implicated in criminal cases. Media reports claimed guilt before trial concluded.
Held:
The Supreme Court reiterated that prejudicial media reports cannot influence judicial proceedings.
Courts emphasized restraint on media to avoid affecting the accused’s right to a fair trial.
Principle:
The case firmly established that media cannot act as a parallel court and shape public perception against an accused.
4. Sahara India Media Contempt Case (2012)
Facts:
Media outlets published statements alleging corruption and illegal practices before the trial was concluded.
Held:
Supreme Court held that such reporting could constitute contempt of court if it obstructed the administration of justice.
Media must avoid publishing speculative or prejudicial content in active criminal cases.
Significance:
It reinforced that freedom of speech is not absolute, especially in ongoing criminal proceedings. Trial by media undermines Article 21 (right to a fair trial).
5. Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018 9 SCC 501)
Facts:
This case dealt with social media posts and leaks during investigations. Concern arose that online publications could prejudice trials and manipulate public perception.
Held:
Supreme Court directed that authorities ensure media and social platforms do not interfere with fair trials.
Court recognized “pre-trial publicity” as a factor affecting justice.
Principle:
Modern digital media has the potential to shape public perception rapidly. Courts must safeguard presumption of innocence and due process.
🧭 III. Key Principles from Jurisprudence
From the above cases, several constitutional and legal principles emerge:
Freedom of the press is protected (Article 19), but not absolute.
Right to a fair trial (Articles 14 and 21) can override media freedom if reporting prejudices justice.
Trial by media is condemned: media cannot declare guilt or speculate on criminal conduct.
Contempt of court can be invoked if reporting interferes with judicial proceedings.
Courts encourage responsible journalism, transparency, and dissemination of information without compromising fairness.
Digital/social media is included under these principles today due to its wide reach.
📘 IV. Conclusion
The role of media in criminal trials is double-edged:
It ensures accountability and informs society.
But sensationalist or biased reporting can prejudice public perception, violate the presumption of innocence, and impede fair trials.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that constitutional rights must be balanced:
Freedom of speech is vital, but fairness and equality before the law in criminal proceedings cannot be compromised by media narratives.
RELATED Blog
comments