Let courts decide, not media and police
The media's power remains in its influential information-spreading function, while the police wield real power.
MADABHUSHI SRIDHARwarns that media fueled public outrage can instigate extra-judicial killings.
The media is raising doubts about whether Ram Singh, accused in the December 16, 2012 gang-rape in Delhi, was hanged or hanged himself. Could it be a case of trial by police and execution by jail authorities without procedure established by law?
Generally, it is the other way around. Police accuse the media of conducting trials in columns of newspapers and bytes of visual media while enthusiastically reporting sensational crimes. The spontaneous worldwide debate about the ghastly gang-rape in a moving Delhi bus, has been so effective that it became almost impossible for the accused to be seen as innocent until proved guilty and perhaps for courts to decide the case in a neutral manner. The essential norm of presuming the accused as innocent so that we can have objective adjudication of guilt suffered a severe jolt in this case with unprecedented and overwhelming public opinion reflected in candle-lit rallies and protest marches extensively covered by print, electronic and social media. It could definitely be called a trial by media. It becomes difficult for a lawyer to defend them, argue their innocence, if any, or bail them out as per rules of criminal procedure.
In several TV shows with girl students, men and women discussing reform of law of rape in this context, a point often raised was: when everyone knew that these six were the culprits, what else was needed, why not just hang them? The brutality of the offence made people so emotionally surcharged that they were even demanding avoidance of trial in judicial institutions. This could be the climax of what was in effect trial by media. Now, after Ram Singh’s death, it appears that another extra-judicial trial was going on, leading to the tragedy of this ‘hanging’.
Nor is this the only case of trial by media and/or police. The police in Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, shot dead three young men in an alleged ‘encounter’ for throwing acid on two college girls on December 12, 2008. For three days, people stood in long queues before the District Superintendent of Police holding bouquets. It was a clear case of fake encounter as the culprits, persuaded by their parents, surrendered earlier. The police version that they were taken to a forest because they had hidden acid stocks there was not at all convincing. It was followed by the usual story that they were trying to attack and escape, forcing the police to fire in self-defence! (The Telegraph report says: Details of the “encounter” remain sketchy. The police claimed they had taken the accused — who were not handcuffed — to the Mamunur forest, 30 km from Warangal, to seize their acid stocks and getaway motorcycle when the trio attacked them with acid. No policemen suffered acid burns.) It was generally believed that the ‘state’ instructed the police to bump them off and it was meticulously executed. No one demanded booking of a criminal case against the police as there was tremendous support from the people. It was a case of trial and punishment by police and media together, perhaps.
When this writer criticised the killings in Warangal as a violation of rule of law, the cameraman of a TV channel asked, “Would you say the same if your daughter was a victim of acid attack?”. My answer was: “Certainly not. But I have a question: what would you say if your son was killed like this, without any trial?” He was silent. The right answer is that neither the father of the victim nor that of the accused should decide the guilt and quantum of punishment. It is the civilised system established over a period of time in an evolved democratic society that should objectively adjudicate and punish if guilt is proved. This is the essence of right to life in Article 21 of our Constitution, which is violated when there are pronouncements of guilt by media or the authorities and extra-judicial executions.
The media’s power remains in its influential information-spreading function, while the police wield real power. Already, some voices justify the events as natural justice or as a case of “as you sow, so shall you reap”.
The state started its ‘post mortem’ of this ‘mis-rule of law’ situation by making routine statements about ‘miserable failure of security in jail’ by the Union Home Minister. The institution of magisterial enquiry into the incident under the Code of Criminal Procedure also happened in a routine manner. The magistrate is also from the executive, and might. complete the formalities of logical building of a record. It is as if capital punishment been awarded without prolonged trials in courts of law. The original trial is consigned to dead files and academic discussions, as these real trials result in instant justice of satiating the retributive feelings of people at large who are bombarded with information that seems to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Several layers of appeals, confirmation of death penalties, rejection of clemency, judicial review etc. have been avoided.
Meanwhile, the media plunged into action to capture the wailing of the
poor parents, which in some countries is regarded as an invasion of
privacy and is prohibited under media’s code of ethics.
Madabhushi Sridhar is a Professor at NALSAR University of Law,
Hyderabad
Subscribe To The Newsletter