Media Trial Shapes Perceptions, Leads To Distrust In Judicial Outcomes When Verdict Differs From Prevailing Public Beliefs: Kerala High Court
A five judge bench of the Kerala High Court while deciding a reference on whether any guidelines on reporting of court proceedings be formulated has observed that media trial can create a distrust in judicial outcomes especially when verdicts differ from prevailing public beliefs.
The bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Kauser Edappagath, Justice Mohammed Nias C. P., Justice C. S. Sudha, Justice Syam Kumar V. M. was deciding a reference on whether to formulate any guidelines on reporting of court proceedings.
The Court has also decided that the right to freedom of speech of the media under Article 19(1)(a) is limited and controlled by the right of reputation of a person which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution.
While following the decision in Sahara India Real Estate v SEBI (2012) the court refused to formulate general guidelines to guide the conduct of the media in reporting criminal case; it however observed that in cases where the individual right is infringed or likely to be infringed, the person can approach a Constitutional Court for appropriate remedy.
Notably, in his concurring judgment, Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. observed that general public is not familiar with judicial proceedings and is influenced by media narratives. The Court held that media should not speculate or make inferences from unverified information, leaks from investigative agencies, preliminary findings or suspicions of an investigative agency. The Court held that publication based on that cannot be justified as right to free speech. The Court added that such media trial create distrust in judicial outcomes when the ultimate judgment is contrary to public belief.
“Such trial by media not only shapes perceptions of guilt or innocence but also leads to distrust in judicial outcomes, especially when verdicts differ from prevailing public beliefs. The general public often lacks a thorough understanding of legal proceedings, making them more susceptible to media narratives.”
The Court observed that a person not well-versed with law may not know its process and might believe the sensational version propagated by media. Justice Nias also cautioned against targeting the Judge and not the judgment.
“The ersosion of confidence in justice delivery system is further exacerbated when the Judge, rather than the judgment, becomes the target of media scrutiny.”
The Judge however said that media's reporting in a criminal case at the stage of investigation has the capacity to ensure speedy and fair investigation.
Justice Kauser Edappagath in a concurring judgment observed that media often overlooks the presumption of innocence while indulging in media trial or parallel investigation. He said that often 'channel debates' in this matter has a colour of media trial.
“Nowadays, we witness TV channels initiate intense discussions during prime time on ongoing criminal investigations and pending criminal trials of public interests. It is a kind of a parallel criminal trial of the suspects in the news studios.”
Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar while authoring the majority judgment observed that the constitutional right of media does not extend to saying its personal opinion on what the outcome of the investigation or adjudicatory process would be by projecting it as the definite and inevitable outcome of the proceedings.
Case Number: WP(C) 21108 of 2014 and Connected Cases
Case Title: Dejo Kappan v Deccan Herald and Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 701