E-Paper
‘Functioning as kangaroo courts’: Kerala HC's stinging remark on ‘media trials’
“The trial by media can unfairly influence public opinion and lead to the suspects being ‘pre-judged'," a five-judge bench said.
News outlets should not act as ‘kangaroo courts’ by indulging in ‘media trial’ when reporting on ongoing investigations or cases, the Kerala high court said on Friday.
Also Read | ‘Prepare guidelines to check media trial in 3 months’: Supreme Court to Centre
A five-judge bench made the stinging remark while issuing a ruling in response to three petitions seeking to restrict the media's powers in covering active probes and trials, India Today reported.
The bench comprised Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath, Mohammed Nias CP, CS Sudha, and Syam Kumar VK.
The petitions were referred to the larger bench in 2018 following an earlier decision of the high court, amid concerns over ‘media trial.’
“The trial by media can unfairly influence public opinion and lead to the suspects being ‘pre-judged.’ In such a case, the media effectively operates as a ‘kangaroo court,’” the bench stated in its order.
Further, in the detailed order, the judges agreed that freedom of speech and expression is ‘fundamental,’ but underscored that for news organisations, the freedom is subject to ‘reasonable restrictions.’
Also Read | ‘Stop media trials in rape cases’: Mamata Banerjee amid protests over Kultali girl's death
“While freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is fundamental, it does not guarantee the media a ‘license’ to pronounce whether an accused is guilty or innocent before legal authorities have reached a verdict,” the bench observed.
“This is especially true when this freedom conflicts with an individual's right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution,” it added.
Also, the judges advised news organisations to exercise caution and avoid expressing ‘definitive opinions’ on cases under investigation. Doing so, they warned, erodes public's trust in the media if the judicial outcome differs from the media portrayals, besides infringing on the rights of an accused.
