Trials on the tube

BY sevanti ninan| IN Law and Policy | 10/11/2006

Reprinted from the Hindu of November 12. The column appears here as it was originally written.

MEDIA MATTERS

Sevanti Ninan

Following the judgement in the Priyadarshini  Mattoo case TV channels are on a new high.  Their leading lights want endorsement of their belief that television with its sms polls can now help galvanise justice. Barkha Dutt is asking on ¿We the People¿ on NDTV 24x7, "do you believe in the judiciary, or do you believe judiciary needs a push from the media?" Rajdeep Sardesai is haranguing his audience on ¿Verdict¿ on CNN-IBN:  "Does it require public pressure for the wheels of justice to move?" And Sagarika Ghose while being chewed up by an apoplectic Ram Jethmalani on the same channel persists with her question: is he not going against the tide of public opinion as reflected by the press?  The first two are purportedly discussing trial by the media but the subtext is, would there have been justice without our intervention?

The contrast in tenor between  such bravado and what the judiciary has said in recent days about trial by media is quite striking.  The honourable judges are more than a little perturbed. There is  a statement a month on the subject but while unhappiness and concern are expressed there is no invoking of sub judice, no talk of contempt. As yet.

In September The Special TADA court judge in Mumbai trying the Bombay Blasts case expressed his unhappiness at the media interviewing the accused, prosecution and defence lawyers within the court premises. In October the Supreme Court made its observations about sting operations taking place for commercial gains. And this month the Chief Justice of India speaking in Bangalore  urged judges 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. But he also said, "If this continues, there can`t be any conviction. Judges are confused because the media has already given a verdict."

The only tough talk has come from the 17^th  Law Commission which in its 200^th report this year  took up suo moto the subject  of  trial by media. It  enclosed a draft bill with its recommendations to government,  suggesting amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. One amendment proposed  is that the starting point of a criminal case should be from the time of arrest of an accused and not from the time of filing of the charge sheet, so that the media does not prejudge or prejudice the case. (All those amazing press conferences by the police would then go out of the window.)  Another proposed amendment would  empower the High Court to direct the print or an electronic media to postpone publication or telecast pertaining to a criminal case.

Judging from what has become the norm, they have a hope in hell of reining in this brigade. Perhaps that is why the judges themselves are more circumspect. They know what they are up against. There is an enormous amount of discussion today of cases in court, and Ram Jethmalani thinks nothing of giving belligerent TV interviews on the case he has taken up.

One reason why the media arrogating the right to get the wheels of justice moving is problematic is because it treats the accused differently. Some are lovable, some are martyrs, and some are criminals. On the night of November fifth  at 8.30 pm two different cases were being discussed on two channels.  On CNN-IBN Karan Thapar was being completely out of character in his handling of Sanjay Dutt, who is waiting for the sentence in his case. Thapar just about stopped short of kneeling by him and holding his hand as he asked, "You visited a lot of temples recently. You have been photographed at them. Does that give you a sense of peace and a sense of calm?" And ended  with "God forbid it should go the other way, what will you do?"

But on NDTV Barkha Dutt was declaring about Manu Sharma in the Jessica Lall case, "As far as we are concerned he is guilty." Said Jethmalani, "The press thinks they are the judges of who is a devil and who is not." Granted the cases are different. But as far as charges go, surely storing arms in a bomb blast case is not kid stuff?      

When there is a death sentence, the one for Afzal  Guru leads to consternation, whereas the one for Santosh Singh is  greeted with triumphant self congratulation.

Another problem with the media¿s judicial  activism is that it only campaigns for cases which appeal to its market and its imagination. When Outlook editor Vinod Mehta asked on Dutt¿s show last week whether she would be as zealous about a case in Gorakhpur, she responded without missing a beat, "Probably not. These cases work for our audiences because they work for people like us."