When media narratives precede court verdicts, the constitutional promise of a fair trial under Article 21 faces serious challenge.
I often find myself thinking about how our idea of justice has drastically changed. Not in law books or court orders, but in everyday life . It feels like our courtrooms have grown smaller in importance, while television studios and social media screens have grown larger in influence—not physically, but morally. Somewhere between a flashing breaking-news clear and a trending hashtag, justice seems to have lost its patience . Today, even before a judge has read the chargesheet, before evidence is properly examined, and before the defence is heard, opinions are already formed. Verdicts start circulating early—loud, confident, and almost impossible to undo. Many call this public discussion . From what I see, it is a trial by the media . |
Understanding “Trial by Media”
In easy language, trial by the media defines the practice where news channels, digital platforms, or social media start judging a person’s guilt or innocence while a case is still under investigation or being heard in court . Rather than only reporting facts, the media begins to conduct its own “trial” by debating motives, addressing selective evidence, and shaping public opinion . These public verdicts often happen without the safeguards that exist in a courtroom—no cross-examination, no rules of evidence, and no presumption of innocence .
Origins and Evolution of Media Trials
The term “trial by media” itself is not new. It was first widely used in the United Kingdom during the 1980s, when sensational reporting in criminal cases was found to influence juries and affect fair trials in the cases . In India, the term gained serious attention in the early 2000s, particularly after high-profile cases like the Jessica Lal murder case (1999–2006) and the Aarushi Talwar case (2008), Susshant Singh Rajput case (2020) where sensalising media coverage shaped public narratives long before courts delivered final judgments. Over time, Indian courts began using the phrase to caution against prejudicial reporting . The concern was simple but serious – when the media starts deciding results, the constitutional promise of a fair trial is put at risk .
High-Profile Cases and the Rise of Public Verdicts in India
After independence the framers of the Constitution of India have never imagined justice as a public spectacle.The Article 21 provides life and personal liberty through due process, not through prime-time debates of the media. And yet, in practice, I see this promise weakening every time an arrest is treated as a confession, every time leaked chats are framed as final proof, and every time an anchor asks not what happened but how severe the punishment should be . Law Commission of India’s Report No. 200 is an official government advisory report which recommends measures to prevent prejudicial media reporting from impacting criminal trials by pointing that unfettered reporting can distort justice delivery if allowed to prejudge matters before a court’s decision . Justice is meant to be slow because human liberty is seen as fragile . Media trials are fast because outrage travels faster than truth.
Article 21: Due Process Beyond Prime-Time Debates
What worries me is not that journalists report on crime; that is their duty. What disturbs me is how easily reporting transfers into verdicts. Allegations are no longer presented as allegations and Investigations are no longer works in progress in our judicial system. They are conclusions, neatly packaged for consumption just like ready to consume foods nowadays . A few years ago in April 2022, the Kerala High Court stated clearly that the media cannot speculate on the outcome of ongoing investigations or trials, stating that such speculation directly interferes with justice. That warning, however, seems to be replicated only in law reports, not in newsrooms or in the real world.
Law Commission’s Warning on Prejudicial Reporting
Behind every media trial is a human being whose life is quietly affecting. Families stop answering phones and connecting with the person. Children are pulled out of schools. Jobs disappear. Mental health vanishes. And even if a court later acquits the person, the stain remains. The Ryan International School case is a painful reminder . A bus conductor was declared guilty in the public eye in 2017, marched across screens as a monster . When the CBI later found him innocent, the correction was legal—but the damage was social and permanent. Justice arrived but lately and dignity never returned to that person.
Reporting vs. Judging: Where Journalism Crosses the Line
What makes today’s media trials even more dangerous is their digital afterlife of the alleged person by the media. Television debates may end, but social media never forgets. A clipped and edited video, a fake or click bait headline, a viral reel—these survive long after court judgments fade from memory in the public. Algorithms reward anger, not accuracy .Due process is mocked as delay, and constitutional protections are dismissed as technicalities. From where I stand, this is not democratic vigilance; it is mob justice in high resolution which seems as a serious concern for our country.
The Human Cost of Media Convictions
Courts have tried to pull us back from this edge. Former Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia, once observed that while freedom of the press is among the most celebrated liberties, it cannot overshadow the right to a fair trial. That sentence carries the weight of constitutional wisdom. Article 19(1)(a) was never meant to authorise character assassination. Freedom of speech was designed to challenge power, not to destroy individuals before the law has spoken. The media is considered as the fourth pillar of our democratic country after the Executive,Legislature and Judiciary. Yet, accountability for media trials remains weak and loosehanded. Ethical guidelines exist, but enforcement is scary and often arrives too late without any scrutiny. By the time courts intervene, reputations are already buried under hashtags. In the digital space, regulation struggles to keep pace with virality . The result is a justice system that must fight not just legal arguments, but public narratives already settled in people’s minds.
I reject the idea that this is a free speech versus fair trial debate in a very clear voice. The Constitution does not put rights against each other as it expects balance between them. Journalism does not lose its freedom by exercising restraint but it loses its soul when it replaces courts. Reporting facts is essential; Delivering verdicts is not.
Justice Beyond Hashtags: Reclaiming Constitutional Patience
To me, trial by media is a symptom of a deeper illness—a collective impatience with institutions. We no longer trust courts to be timely, so we rush to judge . We no longer tolerate uncertainty, so we cling to narratives that feel complete . But democracy was never designed for emotional convenience by our constitutional framers . It was framed for fairness, even when fairness is slow. This is not just a media ethics error but It is a human error. Behind every headline is a person whose life is being shaped, judged, and sometimes destroyed before the law has even spoken.
Justice cannot be trending as casual social media posts. It cannot be compressed into a debate segment or trend like a hashtag by the people on social media. It requires silence, evidence, and the humility to admit that truth unfolds slowly. When journalism forgets this and starts writing verdicts, it does not strengthen democracy— it quietly tears it down into pieces.
SOURCE – Law Commission of India’s Report\
READ ALSO – ARTICLE 21
