Niitya Ranjan
Jindal Global Law School
Introduction:
In a world where majority of the population relies on media for information and in doing so, end up nursing varied biased notions, an important question emerges before us: Do media trials have an adverse effect on the rights of the parties involved in cases? and if so, to what extent?
This article will bring focus on this question by analysing the case of Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal, a recent Supreme Court judgement that sheds light on the negative effects caused to the rights of the accused and the victim at the hands of the leaks occurred by the media during any investigation.
Brief Facts:
The case of Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal revolves around the issue of dowry death. The victim, Deepti, was a doctor who was married to Sumit. Deepti’s father had lodged an FIR in a police station in Agra on 7th August, 2020 wherein he stated that he had spent over Rs. 1.5 crore for his daughter’s marriage. However, in spite of that, Sumit and his family misbehaved with Deepti on account of dowry. They pressurised her into bringing in more money after which she committed suicide and left a suicide note behind. Within days, that note had been broadcasted in all the newspapers in Agra. The Allahabad High Court had granted anticipatory bail to the deceased’s husband’s family, due to which the father of the victim moved the case to the Supreme court.
The Verdict and Media Trials:
The Supreme Court judgement was delivered by a three judge bench, comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justuce Indira Banerjee, in which they not only cancelled the anticipatory bail that had been granted to the in-laws of the deceased, but also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to further investigate the death.[i]
An excerpt from the judgement which highlights the selective news distribution done by the media outlets states, “Selective disclosures to the media affect the rights of the accused in some cases and the rights of victims’ families in others. The media does have a legitimate stake in fair reporting. But events such as what has happened in this case show how the selective divulging of information, including the disclosure of material which may eventually form a crucial part of the evidentiary record at the criminal trial, can be used to derail the administration of criminal justice.”[ii]
Another excerpt to elucidate the negative impact of media leaks for court cases states, “The investigating officer has a duty to investigate when information about the commission of a cognizable offence is brought to their attention. Unfortunately, this role is being compromised by the manner in which selective leaks take place in the public realm. This is not fair to the accused because it pulls the rug below the presumption of innocence. It is not fair to the victims of crime, if they have survived the crime, and where they have not, to their families. Neither the victims nor their families have a platform to answer the publication of lurid details about their lives and circumstances.”[iii]
Thus, it is clear that the Supreme Court has held that selective disclosures by the media in the midst of a criminal trial does not only adversely effect the accused and the victim vis-à-vis the pending case but also breaches their right to privacy.[iv] Moreover, it is extremely unfair to them as they are unable to clear any vicious rumours that may be spread about them during the course of the trial. Selective divulging of information also includes disclosing material which can form a crucial part of the evidentiary record of a criminal case. Any misuse, misinformation or misinterpretation of the same can be used to disrupt the administration of criminal justice.[v]
As observed by the court, the role of an investigating officer is to find information about the commission of cognizable offences however, the selective leaks made in the public realm by the media pose as a hindrance to the duties of the officer.
With further reference to the aforementioned case, the court also stated that as the accused was from a wealthy and propertied background, the conduct of the investigation is questionable in terms of an unbiased and incorrupt approach since the accused and his family could have easily used their position in society to pollute the unbiased role of an investigation. The judgment stated, “In the backdrop of what has been stated above and the serious deficiencies in the investigation we are of the view that it is necessary to entrust a further investigation of the case to the CBI in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution ….. The conduct of the investigating authorities from the stage of arriving at the scene of occurrence to the filing of the charge-sheet do not inspire confidence in the robustness of the process.”[vi]
Although media is regarded as the fourth pillar of Indian democracy, there have been many instances in which it has caused biased opinions under the garb of freedom of expression and caused an interference with the trials. The term ‘Trial by media’ is used to refer to the influence of newspapers, televisions and other forms of media on a person’s standing in society by providing strong antagonistic views for one party and more pitiable views for the other. This in turn, paints the audience’s vision to look at the case from a specific angle, instead of viewing it in an objective and unbiased manner. These trials have also come under fire for causing irreparable damage to people’s reputations without providing them with an opportunity to explain themselves. They interfere with the court proceedings to the extent that they pronounce their own verdict before the court can come to a conclusion founded in law. This is extremely harmful as their verdicts more often than not end up contradicting the statement, ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Moreover, these trials also pose as a breach of the right to privacy. The right to privacy can further be elaborated under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution. While the law has made provisions for exceptions to the right to privacy to ensure it is not misused—such as the implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005— the courts have a more positive approach in terms of what constitutes privacy in different circumstances.[vii]
“The 200th Law Commission Report qualifies certain publications as prejudicial if made after a person is arrested. It has been recognized in several countries and also in India that publications which refer to character, previous convictions, confessions can amount to contempt. There are various other aspects such as judging the guilt or innocence of the accused or discrediting witnesses etc. mentioned in the report which can amount to contempt.”[viii]
Conclusion:
This issue persists globally. The United Kingdom, also struggles with finding the balance between uncensored free press versus right to privacy and fair and just trials. While the influence of media on legal processes and the general public dates back to the dawn of printing press, it is a growing cause for concern in the modern and technologically advanced era that we thrive in today. Thus, to conclude, the only sustainable solution is to ensure that the Courts implement balanced measures to provide a middle ground for free speech and right to privacy in tune with the fabric of the Constitution itself.
REFERENCES:
[i] Network LN, “Selective Leaks During Investigation To Media Affect Rights Of Accused And Victims: Supreme Court” (Live LawDecember 17, 2020) <https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/selective-leaks-media-accused-victim-rights-supreme-court-167350> accessed December 23, 2020
[ii] Naresh Kumar Mangla vs Anita Agarwal (Supreme Court of India) decided on December 17, 2020
[iii] Naresh Kumar Mangla vs Anita Agarwal (Supreme Court of India) decided on December 17, 2020
[iv] NewIndianXpress, “Selective Disclosures to Media in Criminal Trial Affect Rights of Accused, Victims: SC” (The New Indian ExpressDecember 17, 2020) <https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/dec/17/selective-disclosures-to-media-in-criminal-trial-affect-rights-of-accused-victims-sc-2237651.html> accessed December 23, 2020
[v] NewIndianXpress, “Selective Disclosures to Media in Criminal Trial Affect Rights of Accused, Victims: SC” (The New Indian ExpressDecember 17, 2020) <https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/dec/17/selective-disclosures-to-media-incriminal-trial-affect-rights-of-accused-victims-sc-2237651.html> accessed December 23, 2020
[vi] Naresh Kumar Mangla vs Anita Agarwal (Supreme Court of India) decided on December 17, 2020
[vii] Kale DS, “Media Trials and the Rights of the Accused” (AcademikeMarch 19, 2019) <https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/media-trials-and-the-rights-of-the-accused/> accessed December 23, 2020
[viii] Kale DS, “Media Trials and the Rights of the Accused” (AcademikeMarch 19, 2019) <https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/media-trials-and-the-rights-of-the-accused/> accessed December 23, 2020
