A pertinent discussion

Dear Editor,

I read the article on media coverage impinging on the judicial process (Trial and error) in the May issue of India Business Law Journal with interest. The article is both comprehensive and pertinent. It illuminates an ongoing debate that comes to the fore every now and then, but without influencing and effecting any change to the system.

The essential question remains can the media cover judicial cases without influencing public opinion, however, fair and objective the coverage may be. Yet as the alternative, i.e. not letting the media cover certain cases, would be far more damaging to the fabric of a democracy, we need to take steps to ensure that trials by the media are prevented. In this regard, the UK has laid down stringent guidelines about the manner in which the press can and should cover judicial trials. Needless to say, these guidelines have sometimes been breached in spirit, but the point is that an effort has been made in this direction.

The questions, as the writer of your article points out, become much more complicated in a country such as India where the media often step in to fill the vacuum left by other institutions. A prime example is the police, which by not fulfilling their duties have often left glaring episodes where justice has been denied, which in turn has been exposed by the media. For example, in the Jessica Lal murder case (mentioned in your article) it seemed obvious that every rule in the book was bent to get the son of a powerful politician off the hook, triggering a media storm and campaign for justice to prevail. The same applies in cases such as the horrific rape of the 23-year old in the national capital in December 2012, which shook the conscience of the nation. In cases such as these, the media have been almost forced to take on an activist role and in doing so they have shed any pretence of being balanced or objective. I for one think this is commendable.