Legislature, judiciary and the media

BY s r ramanujan| IN Law and Policy | 06/11/2006

S R Ramanujan

The confrontation between the Legislature and the Judiciary that was gathering momentum from the time UPA took over the reins with the crucial support of the Left parties, is no longer confined to the Constitutional issues of separation of powers and independence of each institution, but is trying to hook in the media as well in this game of one-upmanship The difference of opinion on the "sting operations" between the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India and the latter¿s strong views on the "trial by media" portend the impending conflict.

First, trial by media. The Supreme Court seems to be deeply concerned over this issue. Time and again, the highest judicial forum in the country expressed its reservations over the manner in which the media has been handling issues pending before the judiciary. A few months ago, while hearing a dowry death case from West Bengal, the Apex court was quite candid in making its opinion known: "Media trial interferes with the administration of justice by publishing one sided articles touching upon the merits of the cases pending in courts" It was the considered view of the Supreme court that "media trial is a disturbing factor in the administration of justice".

Again, while delivering the inaugural address at the 13^th state-level conference of judicial officers in Bangaluru, the Chief Justice of India, Y K Sabharwal, said that the judges should not feel pressured by the "disturbing trend" of the media creating public perceptions while a case was pending before the court. They should go strictly by law and evidence without fear of becoming unpopular (the Hindu Nov 5). This was duly reported by the NDTV in its prime bulletin on Nov 4. But the story that followed with a slightly "arrogant spirit" was significant and had mocked at the judiciary for the occasional miscarriage of justice. The story cited the public pressure and media campaign that alone brought justice to Priyadarsini Mattoo and may possibly bring to Jessica Lal as well, while justice was denied by the lower courts in the absence of "media campaign". The thrust of the story, not said in so many words, was that the media campaign on such cases has its own role to play and can correct the wrong course that law takes at times.

One cannot find fault with the channel for this assertion. But how do we draw a line between what can be considered the legitimate function of the media in playing the watchdog role and the privilege of the judges not to be influenced by the media stories while deciding on the merits of the case. And most importantly, who will draw the line. This is the million dollar question that defies an answer. While judicial activism is considered alright in having a check on the erring executive, why not media activism to counter miscarriage of justice? After all, judges are not infallible. However, there is another side to this argument.  Judiciary has its own in-built checks and balances and there are enough provisions for appeal, review and revision petitions by the aggrieved and media cannot be allowed to meddle with this system by arrogating to itself the role of an arbiter.

The second issue that creates friction is the "sting operations". While hearing the review petition of the Chief of CNN-IBN channel on the UP Assembly summons to him to appear before its Privileges Committee, the Supreme Court made a passing reference over the genuineness of the "sting operations" as a professional tool. It felt that the issue had to be examined "one day" as the "stings" are always outsourced by the media and those who do the "stings" auction the stories and the highest bidder gets the credit for media activism. It was also pointed out that more than public interest, financial interest or TRPs  is the primary objective in such operations.

Well, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee, who has strong views over the judiciary¿s interference in matters that fall solely within the jurisdiction of the Legislature, and is itching for a confrontation, struck a discordant note on this. In fact, Somnath da  advocates "sting journalism" to strengthen the institution of democracy and has praise for the media for exposing those who took cash to ask questions in the House or those who tried to benefit while deploying the funds allocated under the MPLADS. It is not without reason he made a particular reference to these "stings" at a press conference in Hyderabad. It is based on these "stings" the Parliament expelled more than a dozen MPs who had gone to the Court questioning the powers of Parliament to expel members once they are elected by the people. What could not be achieved by the designated agencies to expose the corrupt Parliamentarians was achieved by the media through stings. This may, perhaps, have prompted the Speaker to defend the "stings". The apex court had completed the hearings in the case and the verdict is expected anytime. If some oldies in the profession think that sting journalism is nothing but lazy journalism, should they not correct themselves at least after listening to Somnathda!

Contact: s_ramanujan9@yahoo.co.in