By Kashish Singla
“Media trials are defined as certain regional or national news ‘events’ in which the criminal justice system is co-opted by the media as a source of high drama and entertainment”
—K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra [1962 AIR 605]
Social media significantly influences public perceptions and social dynamics, revolutionizing information sharing and engagement. However, its rapid, often unverified dissemination of information raises concerns, particularly regarding media trials. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook can prematurely shape public opinion, compromising the impartiality of judicial proceedings and undermining the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” Media, as the “fourth pillar of democracy,” plays a crucial role in raising awareness but often crosses ethical boundaries by conducting trials outside the courtroom. Such practices risk prejudicing actual trials and infringing on the accused’s right to a fair trial.
Social Implication
In India, social media trials have a significant social impact that goes beyond the court system to influence people, communities, and social cohesiveness. These proceedings, which circumvent the legal system and result in harassment, cyberbullying, and privacy violations, frequently serve to perpetuate prejudices, stereotypes, and online vigilantism. Victims, accused people, and their family deal with social division, psychological suffering, and public scrutiny. Such trials erode trust in legal institutions and challenge freedom of speech, with many resorting to self-censorship out of fear of retaliation. Anonymous profiles encourage hate speech, disinformation, and moral quandaries. Legal changes, improved privacy safeguards, and awareness-raising initiatives are needed to address these problems and promote social media usage that respects people’s rights.
Legal Implications
The legal structure that oversees social media prosecutions in India includes provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that address issues including hate speech, cyberbullying, and defamation. Section 499 IPC defines defamation as harming someone’s reputation by false statements, which is commonly done on social media. Sections 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code prohibit hate speech that sows discord or communal tensions. Even though cyberbullying is not explicitly defined, illegal intimidation and harassment—which may include online abuse—are covered by Sections 503 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. These regulations strike a compromise between safeguards against harm and freedom of speech, emphasizing social media accountability.
Instances of Social Media Trials
There have been an enormous number of cases where social media swayed public opinion one way or the other. The under-mentioned illustrations delve into the realm of how powerful social media can be and how it affects the opinion of the public in tune to the deliverance of justice.
Nirbhaya Case
The ‘Delhi Gang Rape’ case, or the Nirbhaya case, is arguably the most gruesome rape case that ever came into the spotlight. On the night of December 16, 2012, a 23-year-old female physiotherapy intern, who was returning from a theatre with her friend, was gang-raped and tortured inside a moving bus in New Delhi by six men. She died thirteen days later.
For months, this savage tragedy was extensively covered by the media, and with good reason. It raised concerns about Indian women’s sexual safety and sent shockwaves around the country, even making headlines abroad. There were nationwide demonstrations and widespread agitation. In India, tens of thousands of rape cases are reported annually, but few of them gain the notoriety that this one did. The crime’s extreme savagery and widespread media attention caused it to have a lasting effect on both the Indian legal system and its citizens.
It made the Apex Court set up the J.S. Verma Committee to review the Indian legal system for sexual offenses. Thanks to the expansive reportage, the Committee received over 80,000 public suggestions, following which the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013 or the ‘Nirbhaya Act’ was passed. It made several crucial changes to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). Notably, it added Sections 354A, 354B, 354C, and 354D to penalize sexual harassment, assault intending to disrobe women, voyeurism, and stalking, respectively. It also clubbed rape and murder into one offense of ‘rape resulting in death or vegetative state’ under Section 376A of IPC, punishable with rigorous imprisonment for at least twenty years, extendable to life imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s life or death sentence.
While the Delhi Police were debating whose jurisdiction was appropriate, the media was instrumental in recognizing and denouncing the fact that the victim had missed countless priceless moments of their life. In the end, the Zero FIR concept was presented, enabling any police station to file a complaint without being restricted by jurisdiction. Additionally, despite media reports indicating that he was the most violent of the six perpetrators, the juvenile offender was released after three years in a rehabilitation facility.
As a result of the extensive media push and public agitation, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 was passed which now allows juveniles aged 16- 18 years to be tried as adults in cases of heinous offenses.
Nowadays, we see that many news channels are merely hungry for TRPs rather than responsible journalism. However, media has immense potential. Criminal cases like the ones discussed earlier proclaim the power it holds in influencing people and public authorities. They strike a chord with middle-class India because such incidents can happen to anyone. But with great power comes great responsibilities. Media often tends to put undue pressure on the judiciary, sensationalize narratives, spread uncorroborated information, and infringe on the accused’s privacy. It often ignores the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. The media’s role should be one of truth-seeking, balanced reporting, and facilitating informed discussions rather than becoming a source of false narratives.
Atul Subhash Case
The tragic suicide of 34-year-old Bengaluru-based tech professional, Atul Subhash, has ignited a nationwide debate on men’s mental health, systemic biases in legal proceedings, and the societal narratives that have emerged in its aftermath.
The media’s portrayal of Subhash’s suicide has further fueled the debate. Certain news outlets have been criticized for framing the incident as a battleground between men’s and women’s rights, potentially exacerbating gender divides. Such representations can overshadow the multifaceted nature of the issue, reducing it to a binary conflict rather than a complex societal problem requiring nuanced solutions.
The media coverage surrounding Subhash’s suicide highlights the necessity for responsible journalism that emphasizes accuracy, sensitivity, and fairness rather than sensationalism. By portraying the event as a conflict between men’s and women’s rights, some news organizations have not only aggravated gender divides but have also concealed the underlying societal issues involved. A more ethical and balanced perspective could turn such reporting into a driving force for meaningful change, encouraging better understanding and prompting systemic improvements to avoid similar tragedies in the future.
The Sushant Singh Rajput Case
On June 14, 2020, Sushant Singh Rajput was found dead in his Mumbai home, initially ruled a suicide. His family accused his girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty of abetment to suicide and financial exploitation, sparking a media frenzy. Sensationalized coverage vilified Rhea, influencing public opinion despite limited evidence, and raising questions about the ethics of media trials.
Rhea was not at all a familiar actor to the general public till the late actor’s death. Even though she made her debut movie over 10 years ago, she had not gained any popularity as such. But, in those days ‘Rhea’ was the only news, India’s big media networks wanted to talk about.
The media rushed to deluge and engulf viewers in diversionary noise. Rhea stood as a faulted and convicted woman with all the allegations and charges lobbed at her. It was said that a manipulating girlfriend who looted money from her partner Sushant Singh Rajput, was on drugs and perhaps assisted or at least intrigued to have him killed. Official agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate have probed Chakraborty for hours. On nightly television news – whose anchors serve as judge, jury, and executioner in all matters – Rhea has been denigrated beyond all known limits of journalistic ethics, to say nothing of human decorum and dignity. It reveals that an independent woman is targeted and made as a perfect villain in India presently where everyone can focus all their energies on defaming the accused before getting convicted. She was shown as an uncaring girlfriend who lets Sushant die as if it was her sole responsibility to look after him to keep him alive.Conservative television hosts have reported and delineated her as a “manipulative” woman who “performed black magic” and “drove Sushant to suicide”. On social media, she has been trolled relentlessly and was called a “fortune huntress”, a “mafia moll”, “vishkanya, and Dayanand “sex bait to trap rich men”.
All the media has been reckless, thoughtless, and careless in handling the issue. They have failed to differentiate between what reporting exactly is, along with simply sensationalizing the news. The media has no right to target people and declare them guilty or evoke negative sentiments about them. if Rhea being a woman is already a witch then this leads to huge character assassination of the woman who is declared not guilty by the court.
Although media trials are frequently condemned for having the potential to sabotage legal proceedings, when handled properly, they can also be beneficial. Media trials have the power to hold institutions accountable, draw attention to systemic problems, and increase public knowledge of important issues. They can raise awareness of incidents that might otherwise go unreported, giving victims’ and marginalized populations’ voices more weight and encouraging authorities to actquickly.
Media trials can operate as a catalyst for social change by promoting transparency and urging changes to the legal system when they are conducted in accordance with ethical journalism and supported by the facts. Media trials can ultimately be turned into a force for greater societal good with a balanced strategy that upholds the rule of law while utilizing the media’s ability to enlighten and engage.
—Kashish Singla is a second-year student of Siddharth Law College, Mumbai