TRIAL REPORTAGE :

Thus Far, and No Further

Hemraj Singh

Media's involvement with a legal process is quite beneficial but may also defeat the purpose of a criminal trial if the reporters overstep the boundary between 'reporting' and 'judging', says Hemraj Singh

The more the power, the greater the responsibility; thus goes the adage. And mightier than the sword, pen, indeed, is. However, the wielders of pen seem to have either lost the sense of responsibility or have buried it too deep inside for it to call out loud enough. Still, despite all commercialization of news and newspapers, newsmen have managed to unearth a considerable lot of muck to force the system to work and punish the guilty, or so it seems.

Priyadarshini Mattoo, the law student who was raped and killed in her own apartment in South Delhi, finally had her share of posthumous justice when her killer was convicted and sentenced. With the trial finding the accused ‘not guilty’ for want of evidence, the case was largely seen as yet another instance of a rich and influential individual getting away with the most heinous crime in the statute book. Years after the case had been lying in appeal before the High Court, some of those who were not as comfortable with the injustice than others chose to do something about it. Something, anything, no matter how little it was. Even if it was just organizing a candle march with placards crying for justice, they wanted to do as much to remind the authorities that even if the dead could not come back to demand justice, and even if the family of the deceased was pitched against the mighty heavyweights, justice must prevail. The Delhi High Court took note, and speeded the process up. As a result the verdict came soon enough bringing conviction for the accused. Ends of justice were finally served.

More recently, Jessica Lal case, too, came to a close with the Delhi High Court reversing the acquittal of Manu Sharma and awarding him a life sentence.

In both of these cases, apparently, it was the public outrage and media focus that led to a quick verdict. It is also widely believed that due to media glare the influential could not exercise their influence as much as they otherwise could.

Both of these general perceptions are right and wrong in equal measure. Right, because media glare did ensure that the string pulling did not work, and wrong, because the High Court would have held the accused guilty with or without the media keeping a close watch. So far as speedy justice is concerned, we have already seen the fast track courts concluding the criminal trial and sentencing the accused in a few months. Therefore, media glare is not a pre-requisite for speedy justice.

However, what cannot be overlooked is the fact that though a focussed media does not affect the proceeding inside the court but it does curtail, to a very large extent, the hanky panky outside the court. The final verdict in any of these cases would be the same on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, so the media focus does nothing on that count. But if media reportage was not as honest and as keen as this, the presentation of the facts and circumstances might have been influenced, in which case the outcome of the case could be different. This is where the role of an honest media assumes critical importance. They are the watchdogs and so long as they do their work honestly and responsibly, the wheels of justice would roll right. But if the media is overzealous, the dangers are as high. The over-reporting on a particular case may also result in miscarriage of justice because public perception is one thing and a conviction under the law is quite another. Over-reporting can hamper the trial because a conviction is based on concrete facts proved beyond reasonable doubt and so it should be while a media report is nothing more than an assortment of facts. A fair trial is more important than the result, and overindulgence of the media may mess up the findings. True, the judges are trained to remain uninfluenced by popular opinion, but too strong a public opinion may prevent him from giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. The legal doctrine of ‘presumed innocence’ may suffer in such a case, which would mean denying the accused his constitutionally protected right to fair trial.

Media’s involvement with a legal process is quite beneficial but may also defeat the purpose of a criminal trial if the reporters overstep the boundary between ‘reporting’ and ‘judging’. This position is either to be understood by the media persons themselves, or else, the time may come soon when they are directed to respect the demarcation.