Open Access Research Article
FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN MEDIA TRIAL: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF USA, UK AND INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RIGHTS OF
ACCUSED IN MEDIA TRIAL: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF USA, UK AND INDIA
AUTHORED
BY - SRISHTI RAJPOOT
GAUTAM
BUDDHA UNIVERSITY
Abstract
The topic of "rights of accused
in media trial" is concerned with the legal safeguards and rights that are
available to those who have been charged with a crime and are awaiting trial,
particularly in the context of media coverage and attention surrounding their
case. The public's impression of the accused can be shaped by the media, which
has a big impact on public opinion and can affect how the trial turns out.
Therefore, it's important to strike a balance between the accused's right to a
fair trial and press freedom. This topic covers a wide range of topics,
including the effect of media coverage on the presumption of innocence, the
obligation of the media to cover current trials, and legal remedies.
Press freedom is extremely important
in a democracy. However, it must be done without limiting someone's freedom.
Media trials frequently put the accused's right to a fair trial in jeopardy.
Media trials are a relatively recent phenomenon that cannot be avoided owing to
its influence with legal procedures and full inability to distinguish between a
"accused" and a "convict."
This is a widespread phenomenon that
has the potential to have a detrimental impact on the populace because the
media is such a powerful institution. By holding a trial in the media, one is
unfairly interfering with the execution of justice and the rights of the
accused. To uphold social order and prevent individuals from being duped.
Keywords:
Rights of accused, legal
proceedings, Article 19, media trial, legal system, media coverage, criminal
cases, right to information, right to privacy
Introduction
The media is sometimes referred to as
the "fourth pillar of democracy" after the court, executive branch,
and legislative branch. It has the ability to change society attitudes and is
crucial for awakening individuals. Free and independent media are so essential
for maintaining democracy. Press freedom is not mentioned expressly in Section
3 of the Indian Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has determined in a
number of cases that Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution also protects
journalistic freedom.
Free speech, or the ability to
express one's thoughts, is a basic need of liberty. It is the unrestrained use
of words to communicate ideas. It is regarded as a fundamental right. Every person
naturally has access to this right; neither the state nor the government may
provide it. This does not, however, imply that other countries' constitutions
are not required to provide it. In a liberal democracy, it is essential to
safeguard the right to free expression. It makes way for unrestrained public
discourse. Communication of ideas is a component of freedom of speech,
regardless of the media.
Press coverage is covered under the
phrase "expression," which is used in combination with
"speech" in Art. 19(1)(a). Despite the absence of a specific mention
of the media in the Constitution, the Supreme Court was called to protect the
freedom of the press in a number of cases that were brought before it beginning
in 1950. Even contemporary science and technology have produced, and continue
to provide, a range of means of self-expression and means of facilitating
communication. Therefore, the basic rights protected include the community's
collective right as well as the right of people to read, to become educated,
and to exchange information. It just comes down to people having a right to
know.
In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras,
the court found that press freedom and freedom of speech are fundamental to all
democratic institutions. Since that time, there has been a discernible
improvement in the acceptance and upholding of journalistic independence. The
right of the press to be informed about governmental affairs is protected by
the Supreme Court of India's decision in Prabhu Dutt v. Union of India. However,
this privilege is not unfettered and may be limited if doing so furthers the
common interest. Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India is a case in point.[1]
Journalism's primary objective has
always been to hold up a mirror to society and expose its negative aspects.
Thanks to the advancement of technology, mobile applications, publications in
almost every regional language, and the internet, news and information are now
available to everyone. This huge impact regularly informs people of current affairs
and makes them informed of world events.
The media is crucial in lowering
white-collar crimes, wealthy businesspeople, dishonest public servants, and
well-known figures who attempt to buy their way out of legal proceedings. The
media monitors this reprehensible behaviour and plays a key role in uncovering
large frauds committed by government or official figures. The impact that the
media has on how individuals think in the modern world cannot be denied.
It has accomplished a great job of
bringing culprits to justice in various cases, including as the rape and murder
of Priyadarshini Mattoo, Jessica Lal, and Nitish Katara. The IPL games
(Matchfixing & Betting issue) played in broad daylight were brought to the
public's attention as a result of media coverage. In some circumstances, the
media has undoubtedly been beneficial.
Think for a second about a situation
where someone is accused of a crime. The facts of the case are completely
ignored. No legal process exists, there is no right to voice concerns, and
legal arguments are rarely raised in court. Because it is presumed to be
guilty, the accused's motive alone decides the result. In this instance,
seeking conviction entirely interferes with seeking justice. Regrettably, this situation has become today's
terrible reality as a result of the Media taking on the function of the legal
system.
Freedom
of press in England
Prior restriction has always been a
part of the history of printing in England. In 1476, W. Caxton brought printing
to England. A small number of printers in the early days of printing
specialised on non-controversial subjects. However, once Henry VIII was elected
head of the English Church, religious disagreements inexorably merged with
political issues. The monopolies and restricted licencing tools were regularly
supplemented with new laws and regulations that sought to control content and
regulate trade. The most tight regulations were put in place in 1586 during the
reign of Elizabeth I, when a Star Chamber decree specifically limited the
number of printing facilities and required that all works be reviewed by the
Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of London before publication. Control
was handled by The Stationers Company, a collection of accredited printers.
The process of the licencing system
came to an end when the Star Chamber was abolished by the Parliament in 1641.
For a long period, the press was left without an effective censor and robust
copyright defence. In the end, the disarray in the printing sector and the bitter
verbal disputes forced the parliament to establish a new censorship enforcement
mechanism. It created a strong group of licensors in 1643 and reestablished the
Stationers Company's position of influence through the courts. Episcopal and
royal authority over limits was replaced by parliamentary and puritan control.
The Stationers Company also reduced its burdensome business methods. However,
the licencing programme continued.
In the 18th century, there were more
political newspapers and journalists. The independent craftspeople who had
benefitted from the repeal of the Printing Act extolled the virtues of its
repeal as the absence of previous censorship developed from being a simple
statement of fact to a concept. William Blackstone presented this idea in its
well-known form in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, “The liberty of the press is indeed crucial
to the nature of a free state: but this consists in laying no previous
restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal
matter when published. Every free man has an undoubted right to lay what
sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this is to destroy the
freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or
illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity.” The freedom of
the press is also guaranteed together with the right to free speech, but it is
not unrestricted.
Freedom
of Press in the United States of America
The First
Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression in the United States is
fundamentally dependent on press freedom. It acts as a crucial check on
governmental authority, assuring openness, responsibility, and the public's
access to information. The United States has a long history of strong press
freedoms, which have been influenced by important court decisions that have set
the parameters of press freedom and are upheld by constitutional principles.
Press freedom is strongly protected
by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the
press." This constitutional protection underscores the importance of an
independent press as a cornerstone of democracy. It ensures that journalists
have the right to gather, report, and publish news and information without
government interference or censorship.
Throughout
history, numerous Supreme Court decisions have shaped the understanding of
press freedom in the United States. One landmark case that has had a profound
impact is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan[2]
(1964). In this decision, the court established important safeguards for
journalistic coverage of issues of general interest. The Court ruled that when
filing defamation actions against the press, public authorities must adhere to
certain criteria. Public authorities must demonstrate that the allegedly
defamatory comment was made with "actual malice"—knowledge of its
untruth or reckless disdain for the truth—in order to prevail in such
circumstances. The decision was made to stop public figures from exploiting
libel laws to restrict journalistic scrutiny and criticism.
Another notable case is Near v.
Minnesota[3] (1931), In
which a state statute enabling previous limits on a newspaper's publishing was
overturned by the Supreme Court. According to the Court, limits placed by the
government prior to publication, or "prior restraints," are presumed
to be unlawful. The decision stated that, unless there are extraordinary
circumstances, such as immediate risks to national security, the government
should not have the authority to restrict or control the press by prior
restraint.
In recent
years, the Supreme Court has addressed several cases related to press freedom
in the context of new technologies and digital media. In Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission[4] (2010),
the Court extended press freedom protections to corporations and other
non-media entities engaged in political speech. The ruling held that restrictions
on independent expenditures by corporations and unions in political campaigns
violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech, including the speech
of media corporations.
The growth of "fake news,"
the spread of false information online, and the decline in public confidence in
conventional media channels are just a few of the recent problems that have
threatened press freedom in the United States. The ubiquity of social media
platforms and the ease with which information may be shared have complicated
the journalistic landscape and prompted inquiries about platform accountability
and the necessity of media literacy among the general population.
In addition to the landmark cases
mentioned earlier, several other notable Supreme Court decisions have
contributed to the understanding and protection of press freedom. One such case
is Branzburg v. Hayes[5] (1972),
where the Court considered the relationship between press freedom and the
government's ability to compel journalists to reveal confidential sources or
testify before grand juries. While the Court ruled that journalists do not have
an absolute privilege against testifying, it recognized the importance of
protecting the free flow of information and established a qualified reporter's
privilege. This privilege requires the government to demonstrate a compelling
interest that cannot be satisfied by alternative means before compelling a
journalist's testimony.
Beyond the Supreme Court decisions,
the United States has various legal protections for press freedom at the
federal and state levels. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), enacted in
1966, grants the public the right to access government records and information,
ensuring transparency and accountability. Additionally, many states have shield
laws that provide protections for journalists and their confidential sources,
allowing them to withhold information from legal proceedings under certain
circumstances.
However, it is important to note
that press freedom in the United States is not without challenges and ongoing
debates. The rise of digital media and the decline of traditional news outlets
have raised concerns about the sustainability and quality of journalism. The
concentration of media ownership and the potential for bias or undue influence
have also sparked discussions about the need for diverse and independent
sources of news.
Moreover, issues related to the
protection of journalists' safety and security, particularly in the face of
threats, intimidation, or violence, continue to be of concern. Efforts to
strike a balance between national security interests and the public's right to
know in cases involving leaked classified information have also generated
significant debates.
Despite
these challenges, the United States remains committed to upholding and
protecting the freedom of the press as a fundamental democratic principle. A
free press serves as a vital check on government power, informs public
discourse, and empowers individuals to make informed decisions as active
participants in democratic processes.
Freedom of press in India
A crucial component of a democratic
society and a key component of India's thriving democracy is press freedom. As
the fourth estate, the press acts as a watchdog, disseminates information, and
promotes accountability and openness. The Constitution of India protects
journalistic freedom, and significant court decisions have influenced the
right's parameters. Let's examine the legal foundation provided by the
constitution, illustrious case law, and difficulties encountered in
implementing press freedom.
Constitutional Framework:
The Indian Constitution does not specifically mention press
freedom, but it is an essential component of the larger right to free speech
and expression. All people, including journalists, have the right to freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This
constitutional clause guarantees the press's freedom of expression, information
dissemination, and vital check on issues of public concern.
Notable Case Laws:
1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras[6] (1950): In
this significant case, the Supreme Court considered the reach of press freedom.
The Supreme Court determined that the right to freedom of speech and
expression, which includes the freedom of the press, is not unalienable and
that it may be subject to reasonable limitations in the interest of the general
welfare, morality, or decency. The Court emphasised, however, that any
limitation must be fair and cannot be employed to squelch or silence valid
criticism or disagreement.
2.
Bennett
Coleman & Co. v. Union of India[7] (1973): In
this case, the Supreme Court recognised that the freedom of the press extends
to the public's right to information as well as the press's own. The Court
acknowledged the critical function of the media in informing the public,
serving as a watchdog, and promoting public discourse. It emphasised the need
for any limitations on press freedom to be modest and specifically designed to
further respectable public interests.
3.
Indian
Express Newspapers v. Union of India[8]
(1985): This case dealt with the issue of prior restraint, where the government
attempted to restrain the publication of certain news articles. The Supreme
Court held that prior restraints on the press are a drastic measure and should
only be imposed in exceptional circumstances when there is a real and imminent
threat to national security. The Court emphasized that freedom of the press
should be safeguarded, and any restriction should be the exception rather than
the rule.
4. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation
Ltd. v. SEBI[9] (2012): In
this case, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of press freedom in
facilitating public debate and the dissemination of information. The Court
emphasized that the media plays a vital role in investigative journalism,
exposing corruption, and holding those in power accountable. It reiterated that
the media should have the freedom to report on matters of public concern
without fear of retribution.
Challenges and Controversies:
Although press freedom is guaranteed by the constitution, it
is not always upheld in India due to many issues and disputes.
The prospect of defamation lawsuits, which are frequently
used to intimidate journalists and media organisations, is a significant
obstacle. Despite being intended to safeguard reputations, criminal defamation
laws have drawn criticism for the possibility of abuse and their propensity to
stifle free expression. The legal harassment and intimidation of journalists
and media organisations has occasionally resulted in self-censorship.
The rise in incidents of violence
against journalists is another issue. Journalists have been attacked in India,
and these attacks have occasionally been fatal. Concerns regarding the hostile
atmosphere in which journalists work have been raised due to a lack of
accountability and practical safety precautions.
Press
freedom has also faced difficulties as a result of the growth of false
information and fake news. False information may be disseminated on digital
platforms, which has the ability to disturb social harmony, sway public
opinion, and undermine media credibility. It is still difficult to strike a
balance between the necessity to thwart false information and the protection of
freedom of speech. In order to ensure openness, accountability, and the free
flow of information to the general public, press freedom is a fundamental tenet
of Indian democracy. Although the Constitution protects this right, obstacles
including defamation laws, violence against journalists, and the spread of
false information make it difficult to exercise. It is essential for India to
solve these issues, protect the safety of journalists, change the defamation
laws, and encourage media literacy among the populace in order to improve press
freedom. In order to serve as a check on authority and promote educated public
conversation, a strong and independent press is essential for a democratic
society.
TRIAL
BY MEDIA AND ITS EFFECTS
In the current digital era, the media
has a big impact on influencing public opinion and court cases. The phrase
"trial by media" describes a phenomena in which media sources, by their
reporting and analysis, affect the public's view and decision regarding a
particular issue before it is heard in court. The implications of this idea for
the right to a fair trial, the assumption of innocent, and the administration
of justice as a whole are significant. We will discuss the idea of trial by
media in this introduction and look at how it affects people, the judicial
system, and society at large.
Effects on the Accused and the Presumption of Innocence
One of the main issues with media trials
is how they would affect the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of
criminal law. It may be unpleasant for the accused when the media
sensationalises a case or delivers skewed perspectives. The tremendous scrutiny
and backlash from the public can harm someone's reputation, cause them
emotional distress, and even make it impossible to have a fair trial. In some
cases, people may be assumed to be guilty by the public before their innocence
has been shown, possibly compromising the core tenet of "innocent until
proven guilty."
Implications for the Judicial System
The legal system may be severely
impacted by a media trial. It may put unnecessary pressure on jurors and
judges, perhaps affecting how they decide. The objective and impartial
administration of justice may be threatened by the media's influence over
public opinion and propensity for prejudice. Judges and solicitors must
carefully strike a balance between upholding the rights of the accused and
preserving public confidence in the judicial system.
Ethical Considerations and Media Responsibility
The phenomenon of media trials also
generates ethical questions for media companies. The media must follow
journalistic ethics and uphold the ideals of fairness, honesty, and balance in
addition to playing a critical role in the dissemination of information and the
accountability of power. In order to prevent media coverage from violating the
rights of the accused or jeopardising the fairness of court procedures, it is
crucial to practise responsible reporting.
Impact on Society
The effects of trial by media extend
beyond individual cases and can have wider implications for society. Biased or
sensationalized media coverage can distort public perception, perpetuate
stereotypes, and undermine trust in the legal system. It is essential for
society to critically analyze media narratives, seek diverse perspectives, and
recognize the need for fair and impartial legal processes.
Media trial & rights of the accused
A fundamental concept of justice,
the right to a fair trial guarantees that those accused of crimes be handled
fairly and without bias. The impartiality of the judicial system may be
threatened by media trials because they can foster a climate of prejudice,
sensationalism, and public pressure.
First of all, the presumption of
innocence, a basic concept that holds that an accused person is innocent until
and unless proven guilty, might be jeopardised by media trials. With its
emphasis on attracting viewers and attention, intense media coverage may
present the accused in an unfavorable light and sway public opinion. This can
undermine the right to be believed innocent until proven guilty by leading to a
prejudging of the accuser’s guilt before the trial even starts.
Secondly, by swaying possible
witnesses and jurors, media trials might impair the accuser’s right to a fair
trial. Jurors may be subjected to slant reporting and sensationalized
storylines that may affect how they see the case. Jurors are tasked with
objectively examining the evidence presented throughout the trial. Even
witnesses may be swayed by media attention, sometimes changing their testimony
to fit the accepted story. The fairness and integrity of the trial process may
be jeopardized by this involvement.
Thirdly, the right to privacy and the
right to be shielded from damaging exposure may also be violated by media
trials. The overwhelming media attention may violate the accuser’s right to
privacy by making private information, prior deeds, or false accusations
public. Regardless of the outcome of the case, this can have serious effects on
the accused's personal and professional life. The unfair exposure that media
cases produce can also make it difficult to recruit an unbiased jury and can
sway prospective witnesses, compromising the trial's overall fairness.
In conclusion, media trials have the
potential to undermine the rights of the accused, particularly their right to a
fair trial. The presumption of innocence, the impartiality of jurors and
witnesses, and the right to privacy and protection against prejudicial
publicity can all be compromised in the face of sensationalized media coverage.
It is crucial for media organizations, legal professionals, and society as a
whole to recognize these challenges and strive to maintain the integrity of the
legal process while respecting the rights of the accused.
From this discussion, it can be
inferred that even though the media is regarded as the fourth pillar of
democracy and is granted freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution, this freedom cannot be allowed to extend outside of the media's
purview in such a way as to adversely affect a trial. Therefore, courts should
develop balancing approaches or measures based on re-calibration under which
both rights are granted equal space in the constitutional framework when the rights
of equal weight conflict.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
The term "media trial"
refers to a complicated and divisive phenomenon that has arisen as a result of
the interaction between the media and the criminal court system. Although media
involvement in court proceedings can act as a watchdog and encourage public
scrutiny, it also prompts questions about the rights of the accused. In the
context of media trials, the rights of the accused are severely analysed in
this thesis. It examines the possible effects of media interference on the
right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the accused's right to
privacy, and their reputation. The thesis also looks at the ethical obligations
of the media in juggling their responsibility to educate the public with the
requirement to uphold the rights of those who have been accused of a crime.
The presumption of innocence, which states that a person is
presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty, is one of the fundamental
principles of justice. This notion is frequently tested by media trials because
sensationalised reporting and public opinion might result in the accuser's
being prejudged. Concerns regarding the impartiality and fairness of trials are
raised by the media's impact on public opinion and the court.
The privacy of the accused is frequently invaded by media
trials, which reveal personal information and speculate on their guilt or
innocence. The frequent media attention might violate their right to privacy,
which can be extremely upsetting and could harm their mental health.
Additionally, media publicity can harm the accused's reputation even before the
trial is complete. Sensationalized reporting and the presumption of guilt in
the public eye can lead to irreversible harm to the individual's personal and
professional life.
While the rights of the accused are challenged by media
trials, media organisations have ethical obligations that can allay these
worries. It is the responsibility of journalists to provide responsible
reporting that is accurate, fair, and balanced. The rights of the accused must
be protected, which requires fact-checking, avoiding conjecture, and giving
background information. To preserve the integrity of the judicial system,
sensationalism and the spread of false information must be avoided.
Media outlets should use caution when releasing
individualised material that is unrelated to the case and take into account the
possible impact of their coverage on the accused. The privacy and dignity of
the accused should be respected in order to have a fair and moral media trial.
Additionally, self-regulation within the media industry can
play a significant role in addressing the challenges posed by media trials.
Developing and adhering to professional codes of conduct, establishing
independent regulatory bodies, and implementing mechanisms for addressing
grievances can ensure that media organizations uphold the rights of the accused
while fulfilling their duty to inform the public.
In conclusion, the rights of the accused in the face of
media trials require careful consideration and protection. Preserving the
presumption of innocence, upholding fair trial rights, safeguarding privacy,
and maintaining the reputation of the accused are crucial for a just and
equitable legal system. While media intervention plays a vital role in
informing the public and facilitating transparency, it must be carried out
responsibly and ethically.
Media organizations have a duty to report accurately,
provide balanced coverage, and avoid sensationalism that could compromise the
rights of the accused. Self-regulation and adherence to professional codes of
conduct can contribute to responsible media trials. Additionally, legal
frameworks can be strengthened to provide guidelines for media intervention in
legal cases, striking a balance between the public's right to information and
the rights of the accused.
Ultimately, a collaborative effort is needed between media
organizations, legal professionals, policymakers, and civil society to address
the challenges posed by media trials. By recognizing and addressing the
potential impact on the rights of the accused, society can ensure a fair and
just legal system that respects the principles of justice, fairness, and the
rule of law.
Recommendations
1. Strengthen Ethical Guidelines: Media outlets should create and
enforce certain ethical standards for covering legal matters. These rules ought
to place a strong emphasis on veracity, justice, balance, and ethical
journalism. To make sure they are aware of their ethical obligations and the
potential effects of their reporting on the rights of the accused, journalists
should get training on these standards.
2. Promote Media Literacy: To enable people to critically
evaluate media coverage, the general public's media literacy must be improved.
The development of educational activities and programmes that help individuals
better understand media literacy would help them discern between false
information and reputable sources. People can better comprehend the possible
biases and ethical issues related to media trials by developing media literacy.
3. Implement Self-Regulatory Mechanisms: Media organizations should
establish independent self-regulatory bodies or strengthen existing ones to
oversee media coverage of legal cases. These bodies should have the authority
to address complaints, investigate breaches of ethical guidelines, and impose
appropriate sanctions when necessary. This self-regulation can help maintain
journalistic integrity, accountability, and the protection of the rights of the
accused.
4. Collaboration between Media and
Legal Professionals:
A greater understanding of each other's duties can be fostered by collaboration
between media organisations and legal experts. To foster collaboration, debate,
and a fair approach to media trials, joint seminars, training sessions, and
forums should be set up. By working together, we can make sure that the
accused's rights are respected while still delivering accurate and enlightening
news.
5. Strict Enforcement of Contempt of
Court Laws: Contempt
of court laws should be strictly enforced to prevent media coverage that
interferes with ongoing legal proceedings. This includes restrictions on
publishing prejudicial material, speculation on guilt, or any content that may
unduly influence public opinion. By enforcing these laws, the judiciary can
protect the fairness and integrity of legal proceedings, safeguarding the
rights of the accused.
6.
Legislative
Reforms:
Governments should consider enacting or strengthening legislation that
specifically addresses media intervention in legal cases. These laws should
strike a balance between freedom of the press and the protection of the rights
of the accused. Clear guidelines on responsible reporting, restrictions on
invasive reporting practices, and provisions for redressal mechanisms can help
create a more equitable and just media trial environment.
[1] Indian Express
Newspaper v Union of India, 1986 AIR 515
[2] Ibid
[3] Near v.
Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
[4] Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
[5] Branzburg v.
Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
[6] Romesh Thappar v.
State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
[7] Bennett Coleman
& Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788
[8] Indian Express
Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641
[9] Sahara India Real
Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603
Article Information
FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN MEDIA TRIAL: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF USA, UK AND INDIA
Authors: SRISHTI RAJPOOT
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/07/03
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.