Skip to main content

Media and Indian Judiciary

 Media and in Indian Judiciary


An independent judiciary is the bulwark of the free society, so is an independent media. Thats why media is designated as the fourth estate or the fourth branch of government in addition to the legislature, executive and judiciary. Like the judiciary, the media must have an ethical basis, exposing the many sides of truth. Laws are made by men but justice has great value as it is based on natural justice or god's truth.

Media has helped to promote legal awareness and published the verdicts of courts that have in too many ways expanded people's rights and protected their interests, privacy, dignity and and good name. Media has reincarnated itself into a "PUBLIC COURT" and has started interfering into court's proceedings. Media's separate investigation builds a public opinion against accused even before the court's cognizance of the case.

Meaning:
The term "media" is derived from the word "medium" which means carrier or mode. Media denotes an item specifically designed to reach large audience or viewers. With the passage of time, the term got broadened by the invention of radio, tv, cinemas and internet. It acts as huge connecting link between the sovereign and its subjects. It acts like a back bone of democratic country.

Importance:

  1. It acts as watchdog of democracy.

  2. It conveys messages, builds opinion and creates awareness among people.

  3. It plays a crucial role in shaping a healthy democracy.

  4. It acts as an interface between common man and democracy


Judicial Interpretation:
Both the judiciary and media are engaged in the same task i.e, to discover truth, to uphold the democratic values and to deal with social, political and economic problems. The media in fact, has been called the "handmaiden of justice, watchdog of society, the dispenser of justice and catalyst for social reforms". Thus both are essential for the progress of a civil society. However, at times, these two pillars of democracy are at loggerheads.

Under the Fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression, themedia claims the right to investigate, to reveal, to expose and to highlight criminal cases.



Mr. F. S. Nariman, the noted jurist, had once observed, "A responsible Press is the handmaiden of effective judicial administration. The Press does not simply publish information about cases and trials but, subjects the entire Justice hierarchy (police, prosecutors, lawyers, Judges, Courts), as well as the judicial processes, to public scrutiny. Free and robust reporting, criticism and debate contribute to public understanding of the rule of law, and to a better comprehension of the entire Justice system. It also helps improve the quality of that system by subjecting it to the cleansing effect of exposure and public accountability."

In Bennett Coleman & Co. the media group challenged the government's limitations on the import of newsprint. In its judgment, the court found the Newsprint Policy unconstitutional: "If as a result of reduction in pages the newspapers will have to depend on advertisements as the main source of their income, they will be denied dissemination of news and views.

That will also deprive them of their freedom of speech and expression. On the other hand if as a result of restriction on page limit the newspapers will have to sacrifice advertisements and thus weaken the limit of financial strength, the Organisation may crumble. The loss on advertisements may not only entail the closing down but also affect the circulation and thereby infringe on freedom of speech and expression."

The case was especially significant because in 1971 India had been in a state of emergency, with the President having the power to suspend fundamental rights, during the Indo-Pakistan war. In 1975, the country was to be in a similar situation when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed the emergency again and the press faced censorship.

Quoting the landmark judgment, lawyer-researcher Praavita Kashyap remarked:
It was a judgement - during a time of intense oppression or attempts at oppression that really upheld the right of the press and said how important it was to our society, and that restrictions on it were violative of the Constitution.



Hon'blr justice Kurian Joseph of supreme court of India while addressing BCI meet at chennai on 26-7-15 citing pressure on the judiciary during the Nirbhaya's Rape Case, has stated that, "Please stop trying (cases) in the media till the case is over. Never try a case in media, it creates a lot of pressure on judges, they are also humans". Referring to "the amount of pressure that is built".

Recently, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana was speaking during the virtual presentation ceremony of the Redink Awards by the Mumbai Press Club. Speaking during the virtual presentation ceremony the chief justice said the media and judiciary need to sail together. "The recent trend to sermonise about judgments, and villainise judges, needs to be checked. The media must have belief and trust in the judiciary.

As a key stakeholder in democracy, media has the duty to defend and protect the judiciary from motivated attacks by evil forces. We are together in 'Mission Democracy' and in promoting national interest. We have to sail together," he said. He also acknowledged the challenges faced by journalists. "Speaking truth to power and holding up a mirror to society is an immense responsibility that is extremely difficult to fulfil," Ramana said.

In the most recent case of "Media One" , A popular Malayalam news channel, run by a Muslim management, is known for its reports that are often critical of the Modi government and its policies. The channel's reporters have won several journalism accolades, including RedInk and Ramnath Goenka Awards. On Monday, the channel received a letter from the Ministry, barring its transmission over security concerns. The I&B Ministry has said the ban was due to security reasons.

The order was soon stayed by the Kerala High Court after the channel filed the petition. The court opined that a bar on the transmission should not be directed until the case was decided, and passed an interim order in the favour of MediaOne TV.

The petitioner had been issued a show cause notice on why the Centre should not revoke its license keeping public order and national security and integrity as a priority, on January 5. The parent company of the channel had requested the government to not proceed with the notice without hearing the company. The company also claimed that they had never been given reasons as to how they violated the national security, and denied clearance. The ban has sparked an uproar among its audience and Twitter users, who sought to tweet against the decision with #StandWithMediaOne.

Conclusion:
There is no denying that the reach of media present unprecedented opportunities for judges and lawyers to stay connected with the community they serve. But there are also risks and challenges inherent in thr use of social media by the judiciary which highlights issues of integrity and ethics.

Media is a great connector, however, if it overwhelms all other aspects of propriety and duty, it can become disintegrative and overflows with unnecessary impressions that threaten wholesome and fair understanding of judgements.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more