Fair trial goes beyond the courts to the police and media

Recently, the Chief Justice of India had objected to the lack of media accountability in the media coverage of legal issues. His remarks come less than a month after the Delhi Police admitted that they pronounced the judicial order in open court before informing the media about the outcome of the bail hearing of AltNews co-founder Mohammad Zubair. was. While how the matter came to be known to the police remains an open issue, it is problematic that a large portion of its news coverage depicts the police officer’s comments as fact without waiting for a judicial order.

Police as Source

In criminal cases that attract the most sensational media coverage, media attention is often drawn to the investigation and preliminary trial phases, with a marked disconnect from the final results of the trial that occurs months or even years after the arrest. Is. This makes the police an important source for the media and communication between the two institutions is often the starting point of trouble for media trials. Irregular disclosure of case details by an eager police force and greater reliance on this information by the media (to the detriment of the judiciary and other sources) resulted in the public taking away the rights that usually come with a fair trial. goes.

Such reporting violates the presumption of innocence and the right to dignity and privacy of suspects, accused, victims, witnesses and persons closely related to them. They often face social exclusion and difficulties in maintaining employment, making them vulnerable to crime and exploitation.

ineffective media policies

Although the police are perceived as an independent agency tasked with the search for the truth (an objective apparently shared with the news media), this is not always the case. Police narratives are sometimes crafted to achieve political goals, and the media’s ready acceptance of these narratives does little to prevent their fraudulent effects. Given the media’s ability to shape political opinion, law enforcement agencies are sometimes under pressure to selectively disclose certain aspects of investigations or to misrepresent events as communal or systemic. Just a few years ago, the investigation into the Bhima Koregaon violence (2018) was flooded with inspired arrests of popular dissidents who criticized the government. While the investigation was on, the police unearthed letters allegedly written by these activists, which were still undergoing forensic analysis. Although these letters received wide news coverage, none of them were produced as evidence in court.

The police, when independent of political and corporate influence, are more concerned with demonstrating mobility and efficiency rather than protecting civil liberties. Courts have repeatedly directed law enforcement officials not to disclose the details of their investigation, especially the personal details of the accused, before the completion of the trial (notably, in the Supreme Court Romila Thapar vs Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753). Despite this, statutory restrictions on police to maintain secrecy are rare, with Kerala being one of the few states where photographs and parades of persons in custody are not permitted under the Police Act. Most other states have issued media policy guidelines with weak enforcement mechanisms through administrative circulars, the contents of which are unknown to the public. The home ministry issued a sparse office memorandum outlining a media policy a decade ago, but it is of limited value as ‘police’ is an entry in the state list and thus comes primarily under the jurisdiction of state governments. Is. In any event, the deluge of media reports on the arrests, along with the residential and age details of the suspects and their photographs, is a strong indication that these internal orders, where they exist, are ignored.

to regulate briefings

Most police departments do not have dedicated media cells, making officers at all levels the official source of information and blurring the boundaries between an official and unofficial police account of events. As a result, the evidence-based narrative of criminal cases presented in court by police differs significantly from the account provided to the news media, to the detriment of the individuals involved in the case, and the justice system as a whole. Many stakeholders now demand stronger regulation of communication channels between law enforcement and the media. In an ongoing case, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties asked the Supreme Court to issue guidelines to regulate media briefings by police to ensure a fair trial. This leaves the judiciary with no option but to consider binding directions to the police.

media apathy

Problematic news coverage of criminal cases arises when journalists abdicate themselves of any duty to contextualize the information disclosed by the police. Media ethics goes beyond verification of facts. In addition to ensuring that police narratives are accurate before they are made public, journalists bear the burden of translating the importance of police versions to criminal prosecution. For example, several reports mention “arrests” without knowing whether such arrests are made during the course of an investigation or after the filing of a chargesheet—an important indicator of the degree of certainty with which police can make claims. Maybe they are actually criminals.

Ignoring these nuances of the justice system has significant implications for the citizens it has to protect, and contributes significantly to public apprehension and distrust in the system. Some of this carelessness can be attributed to the changing nature of newsrooms reacting to deadlines set externally by competing social media accounts that now qualify as news. With increasing financial pressure on media organizations, it is becoming increasingly rare to beat journalists specializing in crime and legal reporting.

Current media regulation is limited, and rightly so. Government regulation for print and television media is not uniform and enforcement of these regulations, where it occurs, is slow. In any event, government regulation of the media is problematic and is likely to increase the politicization of the press. Self-regulation set-ups such as the National Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Indian Broadcasting Foundation are membership-based and can easily be avoided by withdrawing from the group. This weak regulatory environment effectively leaves reporting norms to the discretion of journalists and their editors.

look inside

Unfortunately, given the narrow goals of both institutions, it is neither in the interest of the police nor in the interest of the media to consider how information should be disseminated while protecting the individuals involved in the case. However, with the increasing demand for media regulation, it is now in the immediate interest of the media and the general interest of the free press, that media institutions look inward to find answers to what is essentially a moral crisis. The media’s immense power to shape narratives about public perceptions of justice makes it a close ally of the justice system, along with a responsibility to uphold the basic tenets of our justice system. The media should feel under an obligation to play its part in the support mechanism intended to preserve these principles. On the other hand, a structured and well-designed media policy with training and enforcement mechanism is the need of the hour for the police.

Anindita Patnaik is an Advocate and Research Fellow at Daksha. Views expressed are personal