Dasu Krishnamoorty
Agreeing with Mr S.R.Ramanujam¿s observations (Media meddling with justice?), I wish to highlight the damage that thoughtless ministers can do to media-judiciary relations. As two pillars of democracy, the media and the judiciary need each other and the public need both. Two seminars at Delhi and Bangalore and a Law Commission report, all in quick succession, show a distinct gulf between the two great institutions. In the process, the average citizen is clueless about defending himself against media adjudication. The judiciary has often voiced its unease about media trying to steer the course of justice. Prominent editors readily agreed with them. Last fortnight a troubled judge of the TADA court in Mumbai appealed to the media not to go overboard in reporting the 1993 serial blasts case, a reference to which Mr Ramanujam has made. It is another matter that the trial has concluded and verdicts remain to be delivered. But in most cases, the media begin to cross the path of investigation and subsequent trial from the time a suspect is arrested.
This kind of coverage of crime mostly comes from TV channels, which prefer the softer and low cost option of reporting crime to doing cumbersome reporting of economic crime that calls for skills and intelligence that are expensive to hire. It is now a routine drill for the police to invite the media and parade before them suspects and incriminate them even before a charge-sheet is filed. As Supreme Court judge K.G.Balakrishnan said at a Delhi seminar, publication of photographs of suspects tended to interfere with the test identification parade while details regarding the criminal background of the suspect hurt the positions of both the defence and the prosecution. Balakrishnan referred to instances where such interference helped the acquittal of the accused.
But look at our Law Minister dismissing the concerns of the judiciary only to be on the right side of media. It is a decadent form of populism and a license to media to continue what they are doing. Speaking at the same seminar where Balakrishnan spoke, Law Minister H R Bharadwaj saw nothing wrong in endorsing the role of media in highlighting the lapses of prosecution and thereby ensuring that `rule of law` prevailed in the country. So, a law minister shifts the responsibility of ensuring rule of law from the judiciary to the media. How original! In an apparent (apparent to PTI) reference to the recent Jessica Lal case, the minister thought that the media were in fact helping the society by showing the lapses of prosecution. None of this, Mr. Bharadwaj, is the business of the media. As Tavleen Singh lamented, "In every other country there is respect for the idea of a case being sub judice which means that when a matter is under judicial deliberation it cannot be commented on. The Indian Press appears to have forgotten that the idea exists."
While Balakrishnan mentioned cases of acquittal due to media publishing pictures of accused and thus interfering with identification, Solicitor General E. Vahanavati cited cases where some judges were literally scared of acquitting the accused. Most newspapers today have legal reporters who know the implications of trial by media, though some newspapers still publish pictures of suspects and accused. It is the TV media that show little respect for the rule of law. I have seen on the small screen both policemen and TV crew trying to rip off the masks that suspects were wearing to reveal their identities for the cameras. At the same seminar, Indian Express editor Shekhar Gupta rightly pointed out that the media too had to be just and fair. He deplored the rising trend of sting operations saying that they not only devalued the classical form of journalism but also made journalists vulnerable to attacks from miscreants and vested interests.
A day after the Delhi seminar, the Law Commission recommended to the Union Government to enact a law to prevent the media from reporting anything prejudicial to the rights of the accused in criminal cases from the time of arrest, during investigation and trial. The subject was taken up suo motu by the Commission, concerned at the extensive prejudicial coverage of crime and information about suspects and the accused, both in the print and electronic media. Media have no right to trample upon the right of the accused to be heard by a judge unconditioned by media content.
Earlier, Karnataka Lok Ayukta N. Santosh Hegde warned the media against becoming a "second judiciary" by holding public trials. Hegde told a Bangalore seminar that putting out virtual running commentaries on pending proceedings would affect their outcome. Contrast this with what the Law Minister had said. Bharadwaj argued that the country had a democratic system with a highly independent judiciary and therefore rejected the idea that ¿trial by media` would influence the judges. Bharadwaj should step into the shoes of an accused to understand the helplessness of an accused.
Not surprisingly, neither Shekhar Gupta nor editor-in-chief of the Hindu, N.Ram, agrees with the ministerial thesis. In the context of media-judiciary interaction, Ram raised a very valid point he frequently raises about contempt of court and about the concern of the Indian media regarding the legal provisions relating to criminal defamation. He said that while these concerns need to be addressed by the legislature, the media on their part should voluntarily vouch for accountability in their working. Contempt of court and defamation are two unresolved issues between the judiciary and the media. The two legal provisions are intimidating and place unreasonable restrictions on freedom of expression. Their disappearance will lead to better understanding between the two leading public institutions.
It is unfortunate that media needed repeatedly to be reminded by non-media persons and institutions that their coverage has prejudicial impact on suspects, accused, witnesses and even judges and in general on the administration of justice. The Law Commission went on to point out that, "according to our law, a suspect/accused is entitled to a fair procedure and is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty in a court of law. None can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice his case by the time it goes to trial." The Commission has suggested 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. In the perception of the Commission such an amendment would prevent the media from prejudging or prejudicing the case.
An Indian Express editorial on the Supreme Court ban on protest and articles on the entry of French ship Clemenceau, very lucidly defined the media-judiciary interface. After praising the role of the Supreme Court in ensuring that auto-manufacturers adhered to international emission norms and saving geologically invaluable Himalayan rocks from being used as an advertising medium by soft drink manufacturers, the editorial pointed out that the Clemenceau case was not just about a ship carrying asbestos afloat in the sea, but about environment, economics, livelihood and occupational safety. Therefore, the paper said, the directive of the apex court that "demonstrations or articles, either pro or against or (taking) a middle line", would amount to prima facie contempt of court may put the lid on any debate. It could also set a disturbing precedent. No institution today stands as a more powerful custodian of individual rights and public expression than the Supreme Court. With the highest respect, we wait, your lordships."
The editorial gives the Supreme Court its due even while demanding for the media their due in dignified language.