Open Access Research Article
MEDIA TRIAL: A NEW PENALSING AUTHORITY
Published Paper
Article Details
MEDIA TRIAL: A NEW PENALSING AUTHORITY
AUTHORED BY - NISHANT ARYAMAN
Abstract
This article critically analyses the
freedom of press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which is
freedom of speech and expression, and also the restriction given in Article
19(2). Media is called as the fourth pillar of the democracy so, it can be
easily deduced from this particular statement that how important it is to have
a healthy press in a democracy. The main objective of media is to present the
facts in front of the citizens and make them aware of the truth. But, in the
present time, the media has shifted from being truthful to being a daily
entertainment show with less facts and more drama. The focus of the press has
shifted from fulfilling its obligation to bring out the truth to gain TRP’s.
This paradigm shift has been hammering and shattering one of the most important
pillars of democracy, that is, judiciary, along with the mindset of the people
watching and reading the news. The press has been getting a good hold on the people’s
mind watching it and turning them toward a particular biased thought process
which has led to loss of faith in judiciary and ultimately has resulted into
numerous letters and petitions in many cases based on false facts and imaginary
circumstances. This article has also discussed one of the important remedies in
case the media crosses the line drawn between use of the freedom of speech and
expression and it’s exploitation and the remedy is provided in Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
INTRODUCTION
The Indian court system is already
overburdened with many difficulties and obstacles such as unsolved cases, less
strength of courts, inadequate staff members etc. One more obstacle, that is, media
trials, has joined in this line in this period of digitalization and
technological advancement and it has started disrupting the sanctity of the
very justice delivery system of our country. There have been numerous instances
where the media has interrupted the working of the police and the courts. Not
only disturbing the process of justice, the media has evolved to violate the
privacy of the accused which has led to a development of different concept of
judgment based on hear and say facts, unreasonable materials and a biased
approach towards the accused.
At this time of digitalization, the
main purpose of media has just narrowed down to TRP only. There is a race down
the hill of journalism to see who gets the most view. And in this race, the
media has somewhere forgotten the very reason for its existence and diverted
from its main goal, that is, depiction of truth. There are numerous stories
cooked up by media personals and were lastly proved to be completely different
from that of such as in case of K M Nanavati case, Jessica Lal murder case,
Arushi Talwar murder case and in a very recent case, that is, death of Sushant
Singh Rajput, where the media personals broke all their boundaries and invaded
even the personal space of one the accused and also disrupted the court’s
proceedings to some extent.
There has been a drastic change of
media from ‘doordarshan’ to ‘janta adalat’. Now, what we observe is media trial
where the media itself does a separate investigation, builds a public opinion
against the accused even before the court takes cognizance of the case.
The criminal justice system operates
on the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and
decisions must be based on facts, not emotions. However, the media and the
public often forget this and allow their emotions to influence their views. This
puts immense pressure on the judge presiding over the case and jeopardizes the
fairness of the judgment. According to the law, an individual is presumed
innocent until proven guilty by a competent court. Nevertheless, nowadays,
people tend to assume the guilt of a suspect immediately after their arrest.
It's crucial to remember that the role of the media is to report factual
information and raise public concerns, not to pass judgments.
WHAT IS FREEDOM OF PRESS?
Right to information is one of the
most important rights provided under article 19 and it is facilitated by
another right provided by article 19 itself, that is, freedom of press. Role of
media is to uncover the clouds of uncertainty from that of covered facts and
present it without any extra unrelated or unreasonable facts. In the case of Secretary
General, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal[1],
the court held that right to information does not originate from Right to
information Act but it is one of the rights enshrined in Article 19(1)(a). This
right has emerged from constitutional guarantee under article 19(1)(a) as held
by the Supreme Court in catena of cases. And, one of the important works of
media is to provide information to the people without any discrepancies.
The role of media is very important
in functioning of the democracy. It is generally called as the fourth pillar of
democracy[2]
and for its smooth functioning, freedom is really a pre-requisite need. Article
19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that, “everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.” It can be clearly
discerned from this article that the use of media is for the purpose of
communication of true and unambiguous information to the common masses.
Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of
India says that ‘All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and
expression’. And, this right also includes ‘freedom of press’, although
this right has not been specifically mentioned in Article 19 but it has been
comprehended within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a)[3]
and there are numerous cases where the same has been held. One of the earliest
cases was Romesh thappar vs State of Madras[4],
where it was held by the court of law that though the Press has been given
freedom of speech and expression by Art. 19(1) (a) which includes freedom of
propagation of ideas and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation.
As also constructed by the judiciary, this freedom now includes not merely the
freedom to write and publish, what the writer considers proper, but also the
freedom to carry on the business, so that information may be disseminated and
excessive and prohibitive burden restricting circulation may be avoided[5].
In general, freedom of press includes
‘Freedom of’ –
1. access of
all sources of information
2. publication
3. circulation
And, these rights are provided by
Article 19(1) of the Constitution. There are several other cases that explained
the same and expanded its area in judicial decision. In the case of Sakal
Nwspaper (P) Ltd vs Union of India, the question of reasonableness of
restrictions imposed upon fundamental rights was raised. The court emphasised
that the only restrictions which may be imposed
on the, rights of an individual under Art. 19(1)(a) are those which
cl. (2) of Art. 19 permits and no
other. In this case,
Daily Newspapers (Price and Pages) Orders, 1960, was challenged the
constitutionality of act. The act empowered the Central Government to regulate
the prices with relation to the number of pages and size. The Order was overturned
by the Hon'ble Court, and it was held that the right to freedom of speech
cannot be taken away with the goal of restricting a citizen's economic
operations.
In the case of Bennett Coleman vs.
Union of India, the Supreme Court increased the boundaries of Article 19(1)(a)
by reiterating the views presented in the Sakal Newspaper case and
stated that freedom of speech and expression is not only limited to volume of
circulation but also to volume of news and views. If the laws prohibit the
media through unreasonable restrictions, such as prohibiting circulation,
limiting the quantity, penalising the freedom of choice, then it would count as
violation of Article 19(1) (a).
FREEDOM OF PRESS & MEDIA AND
RIGHTS OF PEOPLE
But, of course, the freedom of speech
and expression is not absolute and there are some restrictions towards it.
Article 19, clause 2 put reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and
expression. It empowers the state to impose reasonable restriction on the
freedom of speech and expression. A careful reading of article 19(2) states
that the article does not empower the state but immunes against Article
19(1)(a). It simply states that the Article 19(1)(a) shall not prevent the
state (immune) from making laws to put reasonable restrictions on this right for
the reasons of security of state, public order, friendly relations with foreign
States, decency or morality or in
relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. There
has been no explanation to the term ‘reasonable restriction’ in the
Constitution but the test of reasonableness was laid down in the case of State
of Madras vs V.G. Roy[6],
where it was said that there is no general rule or standard pattern to
apply the same. It should be applied according to the condition and situation of
the particular case. In a judicial decision, multiple factors should be taken
into account, including the type of right that has allegedly been violated, the
purpose of the restrictions imposed, the severity and immediacy of the harm
that is being addressed, the proportionality of the measures taken, and the
prevailing circumstances at the time.
The
question that arises here is, “why is there a need of restriction”.
Jurisprudentially, a right always has a correlative duty latched to it. The
right to freedom of speech and expression has a correlative duty to not to
interfere with the liberty of others[7].
Lord Acton said, “Power corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt
absolutely”. If a person is given unfettered power, it is a natural tendency to
result into corruption or malpractices. So, there may be situations where this
right may be and can be used to defame others or this right may displease or
annoy others; reasonable restrictions are the way to curb these situations.
The same
principle applies in the case of freedom of press too as it is a branch of
‘freedom of expression and speech’. The media plays a responsibility in the
society; to bring out the truth in front of the people. As per K.M. Joseph J.[8]
, ‘the press cannot be bias and yet free……….. If freedom is enjoyed by the
Press without a deep sense of responsibility, it can weaken democracy. In some
sections, there appears to be a disturbing trend of bias. Controlling business
interests and political allegiances appear to erode the duty of dispassionate
and impartial purveying of information.’ It is a very simple logic that
biasness creates divide and biasness in one of the pillars of democracy and
ruptures the very foundation of a state and India still being in the developing
phase, biasness in media can prove to be dangerous. And, the test of
reasonableness of restriction mentioned in Article 19(2) should be such that
the balance between the social interest and freedom of press shall be
maintained[9].
RIGHT TO
PRIVACY
The
freedom enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) also include, within its ambit, right to
information and similarly under Article 19(2) it is subject to certain
limitations. One of the limitations is being supported by Article 21. The
Supreme Court has recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right
emanating from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to privacy is
also recognised as a basic human right under Article 12 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights Act, 1948. Article 17 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights Act, 1966, to which India is a party also
protects that right[10].
Article 3 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 recognizes the right to life,
liberty, and security of the person. Similarly, the Indian Constitution
acknowledges this right in Article 21. Privacy, however, was not initially
included in this article. The independent existence of privacy in India was
recognized as early as 1935 in the Nihal Chand v. Bhagwan Dei[11]
case during the colonial period. However, it was not until the Kharak Singh
v. State of U.P[12].
case that privacy was officially recognized as a right in free India. The
Supreme Court, in this case, struck down domiciliary visits by the police for
violating Article 21. Justice Subha Rao's minority view in this case recognized
privacy as a separate right included in Article 21 of the Constitution. The
apex court acknowledged privacy as part of the right to life and personal
liberty. Privacy was also recognized as a distinct right in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
Even
though Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution
of India, there has been a lot of violation during the course of exercising
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 by the media. In simpler
terms, the media has exploited the freedom to very large extent. In the case of
K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India[13],
it was stated that between right to privacy and freedom of press, there
must exist a proper balance. There has been many cases such as the Sheena Bora
murder case, Sushant Singh Rajput suicide case and others where the media had
violated the privacy of the accused. In the case of Ankul Chanra Pradhan vs
Union of India[14], the court held
that presumption of innocence of accused is a rule of law and also it is a
legal presumption. It should not be destroyed in the name of media trial. The
name of Aarushi Talwar case is a very famous and twisted case and a perfect
example of the repercussions of media trial. In this case, the media made a
chaos that the murderers of Arushi Talwar is her own parents. Later on, it was
found out that her parents were innocent. Dalbeer Bhandari J., in Arushi Talwar case, observed that “though what authority spoke to media is
not admissible in court, but people believed it and the father became the most
hated man in the world”[15].
But, even it was later found out that the speculations given by the media were
not right, the liberty and pride of the man was shattered because of media.
MEDIA TRIAL AND CRIMINAL LAW
MEDIA TRIAL AND JUDICIARY
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first
Prime Minister of independent India said- “I would rather have a completely
free press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than
a suppressed or regulated press.” But, a completely free press may, and most
probably will, have a lot of unforeseen dangers. The reason for this
presumption is the present condition of the media; even though there are
restrictions imposed on freedom of press, there have been many instances of
exploitation of the same.
The exploitation of this right does
not only affect the mentality and presumption of the people but also poses a
hindrance to the administration of justice. The publication of pre-conceived
notion of any on-going trial or case poses a potential threat to the judiciary
and it’s functioning. The 200th Law commission report on Trial by
Media: Free Speech and Fair Trial under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 discussed
in deep the problem caused to judiciary and its functioning due to extensive
prejudicial coverage of crime and suspects. The report went through discussing
Article 19, with respect to freedom of press and the restrictions imposed upon
them, along with covering different international conventions and its
ratification and effect in India. Chapter II of the report went on elaborating
Human Rights Conventions, Madrid Principles, Indian Constitution and Contempt
of court. Conventions such as Universal
Declaration Human Rights, 1948, International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, 1966, European Conventions etc provides for the protection of dignity
of the accused during litigation period.
One of the important principles in Madrid
Principles on the Relationship between the Media and Judicial Independence was
the first principle which is formulated as, “Freedom of expression (including
freedom of the media) constitutes one of the essential foundations of every
society which claims to be democratic. It is the function and right of the
media to gather and convey information to the public and to comment the administration
of justice, including cases before, during and after trial, without violating
the presumption of innocence.” This principle is very well recognized in our
country where the media has freedom to report cases and situations on ongoing
litigations but within the limitations provided by constitution[16].
CONTEMPT OF COURT
But, the question that arises here
is, whether any remedy exist for the same? The first remedy for that is a writ
under Article 32 of Constitution of India for the violation of Article 21 that
is, right to life and personal liberty with a fact that content shown or
published by media is in contravention of one’s personal life and liberty.
Another remedy that is to be looked into is contempt of court. But this remedy
is not absolute in nature. In case of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. vs
Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers[17],
it was held that, “Publications, if any, however, would be subject to the
decision of the Court on the question of the contempt of court, namely,
prejudging the issue and thereby interfering with the due administration of
justice.” Article 32 is a right that is mostly exercised by the individual
whose rights have been violated but in case of ‘contempt of court’, the power
lies in the hands of the court itself. Article
129 provides the Supreme Court with powers to punish for contempt of itself and
Article 142(2) empowers the court to make orders regarding the same. But,
contempt of court has not been defined anywhere in the code; the Contempt of
Court Act, 1971 provides for two types of contempt, that is, civil and
criminal. Oswald, in his book on Contempt of Court, defined it as ‘disrespect
to that which is entitled to legal regard, but as a wrong purely moral or
affecting an object not possessing a legal status, it has in the eye of the law
no existence’[18]. In Re Bramblevale, Ltd.[19],
Lord Denning observed that, “A contempt of Court is an offence of a criminal
character. A man may be sent to prison for it. It must be satisfactorily
proved. To use the time-honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. It is not proved by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he
told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some
evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him.”
Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 defines civil contempt as willful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of
an undertaking given to a court. In the case of R. Muthukrishnan vs High
Court of Madras[20],
the court discussed contempt of court with regards to media where it said
that going to media and press or press and criticizes the judges in person and
attributing political colors to judgments is nothing but the gravest form of
contempt.
The case of Prashant Bhushan and
Another, In re[21],
the freedom of speech and expression with respect to section 13 of Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 was discussed. Section 13 of the said act has a twin
requirement to establish a defense; first, such a defense is in public interest
and second, that the request for such defense is bonafide.
So, even the media is not completely
saved from the contempt of court. A baseless criticism of judges and the
judgment will always be considered as contempt and will not fall under Article
19(1)(a).
ROLE AND EFFECT OF MEDIA
As it was very well given in the case
of Yashwant Sinha vs CBI[22]
that the press shall not be biased and yet it shall be free. Free from external
forces that dilute the sanctity of media. A wrong or biased or delusion
information in media will affect the thinking process of the citizens which may
lead to development of problems in the way of Judiciary. The case of S.
Khusboo vs Kanniammal[23] is
a perfect example of how media can affect the mentality of people and
subsequently lay down problems in the way of functioning of judiciary. The case
relates to a statement given by an actress about sex which was published in India
today. In this case, the court observed that many letters were sent to the
judges by the people about an order that was never passed and, most probably,
the people get all these information through electronic media. It was observed
by the court,
“In fact, during the course of
hearing certain queries were put to the learned counsel appearing for the
parties so as to clarify the legal issue involved in the matter but
unfortunately, those queries have been highly misunderstood not only by the
media but also by the common man. As a result thereof, we have been flooded
with several letter petitions making a prayer for review of the order passed by
us…………………. Admittedly, all those persons who have sent letters to us were not
present on that particular date but must have gathered information from the
print and electronic media which evoked their sentiments to such an extent that
they prayed for review. It is, therefore, not only desirable but imperative
that electronic and news media should also play positive role in presenting to
general public as to what actually transpires during the course of the hearing
and it should not be published in such a manner so as to get unnecessary
publicity for its own paper or news channel.”
So, the media should be very careful
about their role and what they are publishing as it exerts influence on large
number of people and destroys the image of Judges and Courts.
F. S. Nariman was a noted jurist and
he observed that[24] “A responsible Press is the handmaiden of effective judicial
administration. The Press does not simply publish information about
cases and trials but, subjects the entire Justice – hierarchy (police,
prosecutors, lawyers, Judges, Courts), as well as the judicial processes, to
public scrutiny. Free and robust reporting, criticism and debate
contribute to public understanding of the rule of law, and to a better
comprehension of the entire Justice – system. It also helps improve
the quality of that system by subjecting it to the cleansing effect of exposure
and public accountability” The Nariman committee, which was headed by
F.S. Nariman suggested certain modalities regarding the role of media[25]-
a) The Trusteeship Principle –
Journalists are the trustees of public and they should seek out and report the
truth
b) The Self-Regulation Principle – A
sense of responsibility and self-awareness shall be present
c) Content Regulation – Contents should
stick to truth and facts and no should be regulated well according to the
situation
d) Complaint Principle – There should be
an effective mechanism to address complaints in a fair and just manner
e) Balance Principle – The balance
should be maintained as an evaluation based on the principles of equity and
minimal intervention, but which effectively ensures democracy and self-control
in the publishing of news that another view is well received and embraced.
In Destruction of Public and
Private property, re case[26],
taking a serious note of various instances of large-scale destruction of public
and private properties in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like,
suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Supreme Court and after perusing the
various reports filed, K. T. Thomas Committee was formed, headed by a retired
Supreme Court Judge, Justice K.T. Thomas along with the Nariman Committee. The
report of K T Thomas was mostly inclined towards the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984.
The principles suggested by the
Nariman Committee are like ground rules that needs to be followed by the media.
CONCLUSION
There is no doubt in the fact that,
along with the freedom of speech and expression given in Constitution of India,
there enough number of provision in Indian statutes and acts to fight the evil
form of press and media that directly effects the smooth functioning of a
democracy. But, this fact also cannot be denied that there has been a lot of
abuse to the same freedom.
Media is called the fourth pillar of
democracy and a wrongful use of the powers just for the sake of TRP is an
unethical act. It vandalizes the democracy and the very trust between the
pillars is broken. A healthy criticism is always appreciated but a criticism
based on baseless facts and speculated instances with zero investigation are
uncalled for. At the time of death or alleged suicide of Shushant Singh Rajput,
a famous actor, his girlfriend, Rhea Chakraborty, was stuck in between the
media trial on fabricated and unconfirmed facts. Thousands of questions and
hundreds of debates on Rhea Chakraborty was released in media and the people
were bound to have a pre-conceived notion of her being the main culprit behind
the death of Shushant Singh Rajput. Even the family members and many other
actors and actresses were not spared for this. But the end result of this
entire ruckus was nothing.
Press and media have the whole
country as its audience and its publication and shows has the power the bend
the thought process of a large number of crowd. In a general Indian family, a
news session in the night is a mandatory routine. And watching a similar thing
with a same point of view, though it is not based on true facts, the brain
comprehends it as true and think it as its own view resulting in a chaos in
social medias, disorder between the citizens such as protest and sometimes even
encourages people to write letters and file petitions based on the evidences
produced by media. This creates hindrance in the working of judiciary and other
government agency. It has now started emerging as a private penalising
authority in the country with no rules and regulation. The suspect or the
accused doesn’t even have the right to say or make a stand.
On analysing the current scenario,
latest issues and developments of Freedom of Press, it can be concluded that
although the Press is considered the watchdog of democracy, sadly, there is
scant regard for this truism in a country which is, ironically, the world's largest
democracy. In keeping with its affirmation that freedom of expression is “one
of the essential foundations of a democratic society”, the Court has clearly
shown a preference for freedom of press. In conclusion, it must be reiterated
that the freedom of press and information are fundamental to healthy working of
a democracy and therefore, must coexist with the freedom of speech and
expression.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The first
and foremost thing that need to be checked is a restrained on media trials on
ongoing cases. The media trial result in violation of the privacy of the
accused or victim which need to be protected as it is one of the fundamental
rights enshrined in our constitution.
2. The freedom
of the press given to the media personnel shall not be constrained just on the
ground that it is resulting in bad practices of media trial. But, there must be
a careful screening process to ensure that the information and knowledge that
is being passed by the media to the people is true and not just some public stunt
to gain TRP and edge on other channels.
3. In the
light of the law enunciated hereinabove, anyone, be an accused or an aggrieved
person, who genuinely apprehends on the basis of the content of the publication
and its effect, an infringement of his/ her rights under Article 21 to a fair
trial and all that it comprehends, would be entitled to approach an appropriate
Writ Court and seek an order of postponement of the offending
publication/broadcast or postponement of reporting of certain phases of the
trial (including identity of the victim or the witness or the complainant), and
that the Court may grant such preventive relief, on a balancing of the right to
a fair trial and Article 19(1)(a) rights, bearing in mind the abovementioned
principles of necessity and proportionality and keeping in mind that such
orders of postponement should be for short duration and should be applied only
in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration
of justice or to the fairness of trial.
4. There is growing
need of a separate administrative authority to try the cases where one’s right
is being violated through media trials and they are being defamed and defaced
in the process. It will help to dispose of these kinds of cases at an early
stage so that the particular case that is being effected by the media trial can
proceed smoothly.
5. When
considering the press in the context of India, it is important to remember that
only a free press can contribute to the development of a population of citizens
who are knowledgeable about both current events and the issues facing the
nation, as well as the solutions that are available to address those issues.
Only such a press can help a fledgling democracy like India survive and thrive
in a way that upholds social justice and serves the interests of the general
populace.
6. It is
unnecessary to collaborate with the Indian Press' shortcomings. There is no
denying that most publications treat private companies and the people who run
them with childlike affection. This is partially due to the ownership of
numerous publications and, as a result, the viewpoints of individuals chosen
for high journalistic positions. The pressure from the capitalist owners
prevents editors and journalists from having the necessary freedom to gather,
disseminate, and provide commentary. Therefore, it is important to reduce the
pressure of the capitalist owners.
7. There is a
need of codification of legislative privileges given to the press. The
codification of these rights and privileges will result in getting an exact
picture of the rights that are given to the press to exercise under the shadow
of ‘Freedom of Press’ given by Article 19 of Constitution of India.
So, the recommendations
and conclusions can be summed up into one thing that it is true that there is
presence of many statutory provisions to curb the problem of media trial but
there is still an urgent need of action by the government and a good sense of
understanding by the people of this democracy.
[1] Secretary General, Supreme Court
of India vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal, AIR 2010 Del 159 (FB)
[2] Sanjoy Narayan vs High Court of
Allahabad, (2011) 13 SCC 155
[3] Indian Express newspaper (P) Lts.
vs Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515
[4] Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras,
AIR 1950 SC 124
[5] Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881
[6] State of Madras vs V.G. Roy,
(1952) SCR 597
[7] Subramanian Swamy vs Union of
India, (2016) 7 SCC 221
[8] Yashwant Sinha vs CBI, (2019) 6
SCC 1
[9] Virendra vs State of Punjab, AIR
1957 SC 896
[10] Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank
Ltd. vs. State of Kerela, (2013) 16 SCC 82
[11] Nihal Chand vs Bhagwan Dei, AIR
1935 ALL 1002
[12] Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and
Others 1964 S.C.R. (1) 332
[13] K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India,
(2017) 10 SCC 1
[14] Ankul Chanra Pradhan vs Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 354
[15] Hashmat Ali Khan, Role of Media,
20 ALJ 312, 316 2012-13
[16] Chief Election Commissioner of
India vs M. R. Vijayabhaskar, (2021) 9 SCC 770
[17] Reliance Petrochemicals Lrd. Vs
Indian Express Newspapers, (1988) 4 SCC 592
[18] Court on its Own Motion vs The
Asian Age & Ors., (2003) 108 DLT 494 (DB)
[19] Re Bramblevale Ltd., (1969) 3 All.
Er 1062
[20] R. Muthukrishnan vs High Court of
Madras (2019) 16 SCC 407
[21]Prashant Bhushan and Another, In re
(2021) 3 SCC 160
[22] Yashwant Sinha vs CBI, (2019) 6
SCC 1
[23] S. Khusboo vs Kanniammal, (2010) 5
SCC 600
[25] Destruction of public and private properties vs state
of AP , (2009) 5 SCC 212
[26] Destruction of Public and Private
property, re case, (2007) 4 SCC 474
Article Information
MEDIA TRIAL: A NEW PENALSING AUTHORITY
Authors: NISHANT ARYAMAN
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/01/15
- 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.