Supreme Court cracks down on ‘Media Trials’, seeks guidelines within 3 months

The SC highlighted that "media trials" violate a victim's or complainant's privacy, which is problematic if the victim or complainant is a juvenile

The Supreme Court today strongly objected to “media trials,” which it defined as “biased reporting (that) gives rise to the public’s suspicion that the person has committed an offense,” and ordered the Union Home Ministry to draft guidelines for police to adhere to when giving press conferences about criminal cases. The ministry has been given three months time to prepare a detailed manual.

The National Human Rights Commission and each state’s senior police officers have been ordered to submit ideas to the Home Ministry within a month, and the next hearing will take place in January, according to a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who emphasized the importance of raising awareness among police officers.

“Administration of justice is affected by ‘media trials’. Need to decide at which stage (of investigation) details should be disclosed. This is a very important issue because it involves interests of victim and accused. It also involves the interest of the public at large… media report on crime-related matters involves many aspects of public interest,” the court said.

“At a basic level… fundamental right to speech and expression is directly involved in the context of both the media’s right to portray and broadcast ideas and news… but we should not allow ‘media trial’. People have the right to access information. But, if important evidence, is revealed during the investigation, the investigation can also be affected,” the court argued.

The top court was considering a petition pertaining to a 2017 directive on the same topic; at the time, the court had requested the government to develop guidelines for police briefings that would take into account both the rights of the accused and the victim and guarantee that neither were prejudiced or infringed in any manner. The court subsequently gave a deadline of 6 weeks for a draft report.

“The accused, whose conduct is under investigation, is entitled to a fair and unbiased investigation…. at every stage, every accused is entitled to presumption of innocence. Media reportage that implicates an accused is unfair,” the court said today.

The Chief Justice had stated in March that it was important for journalists to “maintain standards of accuracy, impartiality, and responsibility in reporting” and that “selective quoting of speeches and judgments has become a matter of concern.” This tactic frequently causes the public to misunderstand crucial legal matters. Selective quoting can convey the impression that a ruling implies something different from what the judge intended because judgements made by judges are frequently complex and nuanced.

A month before that the court had instructed police in Maharashtra to look into an alleged assault case more thoroughly.

Today, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati assured the court on behalf of the government that it will create and publish guidelines for media briefings by the police. She said, “The government will let the court know about it.”

The Supreme Court highlighted that “media trials” violate a victim’s or complainant’s privacy, which is problematic if the victim or complainant is a juvenile. “Privacy of the victim cannot be compromised. The rights of the accused must also be considered.

“How should police be trained for media briefings? What steps has the Government of India taken (regarding) our 2014 instruction?” the court asked.

Senior lawyer, Gopal Shankaranarayan, an amicus curiae, referred to salacious media reports surrounding the Aarushi case and agreed, “We cannot stop media from reporting but police need to be sensitive.”

COMMENTS