Ram Jethmalani ko gussa kyon aata hai?
B.P. Sanjay
A cathartic effect takes place among the so-called passive viewers when somebody takes on the media in a no holds barred fashion. This is what was at work when Ram Jethmalani took on the media in his exclusive! interview with Sagarika Ghose on the CNN-IBN network.
Buoyed by a conviction in the Priyadarshini Matoo case, the media with its candle light approach to building public opinion was confident that its trial of the accused would boost ratings and carry the public opinion along on the issues it decides to frame. Thanks to the 24 X 7 media, the Jessica Lal case is now legion at least at the level of perception. The case and its merits are a subject matter of the court and the usual refrain that law will take its own course becomes applicable.
Ram Jethamalaini’s "gussa," apart, his caustic reactions to the media are perhaps worthy of reflection. Media cannot be allowed to be a judge and neither is media a repository of the citizens of India. The media (who the hell it is) cannot decide who is indefensible. Declaring his love for the media and its freedom, Jethmalani wanted the media to recognise its limits. How does the press know what is indefensible and do the proprietors who run such shows know? Have they heard the witnesses? And have they read the evidence?
Going against the public opinion as Sagarika Ghose posed was not his concern and he would be worried if the lawyers of this country did not defend people. He went on to add that the journalists do not know the rule of the law. "You don’t know democracy, you don’t know anything." Public opinion of the kind seen in this case must stop. Upholding his moral courage to defend Manu Sharma, Jethmalani quoted the rule of the Bar Council of India that renders the lawyers guilty if they refuse to defend a person merely because people believe him to be guilty. "You are illiterate and you don’t know what you are talking about. And for once understand and don’t persist in asking the same silly question." He was clear that his anger at the moment was with the way the media was "carrying on a sedulous campaign against a man who is standing his trial and who is already been acquitted in one court." The fact that the person was entitled to a fair trial was his concern. Courts will decide and no pressman, no editor or television crew will decide. He reiterated his anger at the media for creating hype.
Used to drumming a studio panel, Ghose was at the receiving end and carried on the dialogue as professionally as she could. The elite audience perhaps found it difficult to stomach the free use of expressions such as "bullshit" etc. What rounded off the programme later was the studio interaction with two lawyers, one of whom was more concerned with Jethamalaini’s assertion that he would not take up a case. However, the other lawyer agreed with the view that it was the duty of a lawyer to defend.
The build up to the programme during the day and inviting the public to vote does lead one to watch a programme. Many may respond to see their names scrolling during the programme. It also leads the viewers to frame their views. Nearly 80 % of the viewers who responded agreed with the views of Jethmalani to defend Manu Sharma. This begs a question. Wonder what happened to the nationwide audience who lit candles in protest when he was acquitted. What happened to Jessica Lal is not defensible. However, when the media goes overboard it may provoke and prompt powerful lawyers to take up cases that are positioned as indefensible.
As students we were told in classes that a person is innocent unless proved guilty in the courts. However, the era of 24 X 7 media and networked public opinion has initiated trial in the public domain negating due process of law. The irony is large sections of public watch and wonder when in one case (Afzal) the convicted is portrayed as worthy of defense and in the instant case; the acquitted is portrayed as being indefensible.