11-12-2006, 01:57 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->MEDIA MATTERS
Trials on the tube
SEVANTI NINAN
The judicial activism of TV channels is a problematic phenomenon.
Photo: Reuters
Striking a chord: A candle for Priyadarshini Mattoo.
FOLLOWING the judgment in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, TV channels are on a new high. Their leading lights want endorsement of their belief that television, with its sms polls, can now help galvanise justice. Barkha Dutt is asking on "We the People" on NDTV 24x7, "do you believe in the judiciary, or do you believe judiciary needs a push from the media?" Rajdeep Sardesai is haranguing his audience on "Verdict" on CNN-IBN: "Does it require public pressure for the wheels of justice to move?" And Sagarika Ghose, while being chewed up by Ram Jethmalani on the same channel, persists with her question: is he not going against the tide of public opinion as reflected by the press? The first two are purportedly discussing trial by the media but the subtext is: would there have been justice without our intervention?
The contrast in tenor between such bravado and what the judiciary has said in recent days about trial by media is quite striking. The honourable judges are more than a little perturbed. There is a statement a month on the subject but while unhappiness and concern are expressed, there is no invoking of sub judice, no talk of contempt. As yet.
Expressions of concern
In September, the Special TADA court judge in Mumbai trying the Bombay blasts case expressed his unhappiness at the media interviewing the accused, prosecution and defence lawyers within the court premises. In October the Supreme Court made its observations about sting operations taking place for commercial gain. And this month the Chief Justice of India, speaking in Bangalore, urged judges not to feel pressured by the "disturbing trend" of the media creating public perceptions while a case was pending before the court. They should go strictly by the law and the evidence without fear of becoming unpopular. But he also said: "If this continues, there can't be any conviction. Judges are confused because the media has already given a verdict."
The only tough talk has come from the 17th Law Commission, which, in its 200th report this year, took up suo moto the subject of trial by media. It enclosed a draft bill with its recommendations to government, suggesting amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. One amendment proposed is that the starting point of a criminal case should be from the time of arrest of an accused and not from the time of filing of the charge sheet, so that the media do not prejudge or prejudice the case. (All those amazing press conferences by the police would then go out of the window.) Another proposed amendment would empower the High Court to direct the print or electronic media to postpone publication or telecast pertaining to a criminal case.
Judging from what has become the norm, there is little hope of reining in this brigade. Perhaps that is why the judges themselves are more circumspect. They know what they are up against. There is an enormous amount of discussion today of cases in court.
Different treatments
One reason why the media arrogating to themselves the right to get the wheels of justice moving is problematic is because they treat the accused differently. Some are lovable, some are martyrs, and some are criminals. On the night of November 5, at 8.30 p.m. two different cases were being discussed on two channels. On CNN-IBN, Karan Thapar was being out of character in his handling of Sanjay Dutt, who is waiting for the sentence in his case. "You visited a lot of temples recently," he asked Mr. Dutt. "You have been photographed at them. Does that give you a sense of peace and a sense of calm?" Also, "God forbid it should go the other way, what will you do?"
An anchor on a major news channel was declaring about Manu Sharma in the Jessica Lall case: "As far as we are concerned he is guilty." Said Jethmalani: "The press thinks they are the judges of who is a devil and who is not." Granted, the cases are different. But as far as charges go, surely storing arms in a bomb blast case is not kid stuff?
When there is a death sentence, the one for Afzal Guru leads to consternation, whereas the one for Santosh Singh is greeted with triumphant self-congratulation.
Another problem with the media's judicial activism is that it only campaigns for cases that appeal to its market and its imagination. When Outlook editor Vinod Mehta asked on Ms. Dutt's show last week whether she would be as zealous about a case in Gorakhpur, she responded without missing a beat: "Probably not. These cases work for our audiences because they work for people like us."
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Trials on the tube
SEVANTI NINAN
The judicial activism of TV channels is a problematic phenomenon.
Photo: Reuters
Striking a chord: A candle for Priyadarshini Mattoo.
FOLLOWING the judgment in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, TV channels are on a new high. Their leading lights want endorsement of their belief that television, with its sms polls, can now help galvanise justice. Barkha Dutt is asking on "We the People" on NDTV 24x7, "do you believe in the judiciary, or do you believe judiciary needs a push from the media?" Rajdeep Sardesai is haranguing his audience on "Verdict" on CNN-IBN: "Does it require public pressure for the wheels of justice to move?" And Sagarika Ghose, while being chewed up by Ram Jethmalani on the same channel, persists with her question: is he not going against the tide of public opinion as reflected by the press? The first two are purportedly discussing trial by the media but the subtext is: would there have been justice without our intervention?
The contrast in tenor between such bravado and what the judiciary has said in recent days about trial by media is quite striking. The honourable judges are more than a little perturbed. There is a statement a month on the subject but while unhappiness and concern are expressed, there is no invoking of sub judice, no talk of contempt. As yet.
Expressions of concern
In September, the Special TADA court judge in Mumbai trying the Bombay blasts case expressed his unhappiness at the media interviewing the accused, prosecution and defence lawyers within the court premises. In October the Supreme Court made its observations about sting operations taking place for commercial gain. And this month the Chief Justice of India, speaking in Bangalore, urged judges not to feel pressured by the "disturbing trend" of the media creating public perceptions while a case was pending before the court. They should go strictly by the law and the evidence without fear of becoming unpopular. But he also said: "If this continues, there can't be any conviction. Judges are confused because the media has already given a verdict."
The only tough talk has come from the 17th Law Commission, which, in its 200th report this year, took up suo moto the subject of trial by media. It enclosed a draft bill with its recommendations to government, suggesting amendments to the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. One amendment proposed is that the starting point of a criminal case should be from the time of arrest of an accused and not from the time of filing of the charge sheet, so that the media do not prejudge or prejudice the case. (All those amazing press conferences by the police would then go out of the window.) Another proposed amendment would empower the High Court to direct the print or electronic media to postpone publication or telecast pertaining to a criminal case.
Judging from what has become the norm, there is little hope of reining in this brigade. Perhaps that is why the judges themselves are more circumspect. They know what they are up against. There is an enormous amount of discussion today of cases in court.
Different treatments
One reason why the media arrogating to themselves the right to get the wheels of justice moving is problematic is because they treat the accused differently. Some are lovable, some are martyrs, and some are criminals. On the night of November 5, at 8.30 p.m. two different cases were being discussed on two channels. On CNN-IBN, Karan Thapar was being out of character in his handling of Sanjay Dutt, who is waiting for the sentence in his case. "You visited a lot of temples recently," he asked Mr. Dutt. "You have been photographed at them. Does that give you a sense of peace and a sense of calm?" Also, "God forbid it should go the other way, what will you do?"
An anchor on a major news channel was declaring about Manu Sharma in the Jessica Lall case: "As far as we are concerned he is guilty." Said Jethmalani: "The press thinks they are the judges of who is a devil and who is not." Granted, the cases are different. But as far as charges go, surely storing arms in a bomb blast case is not kid stuff?
When there is a death sentence, the one for Afzal Guru leads to consternation, whereas the one for Santosh Singh is greeted with triumphant self-congratulation.
Another problem with the media's judicial activism is that it only campaigns for cases that appeal to its market and its imagination. When Outlook editor Vinod Mehta asked on Ms. Dutt's show last week whether she would be as zealous about a case in Gorakhpur, she responded without missing a beat: "Probably not. These cases work for our audiences because they work for people like us."
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->