NEWSPAPERS AND TELEVISION channels have picked up on the death penalty awarded to Santosh Singh in the Priyadarshini Matto case and are according it a priority in their coverage. People are celebrating it, and are hoping that justice will be done in the Jessica Lal case as well.

 

None of us know whether Santosh had actually committed the rape and murder, but we all believe that — and believed so right from the beginning — that he indeed committed the crime. How did the people come to this conclusion? Isn’t it because this is what they were told and shown by the media?

 

Similar is the case with Manu Sharma, the accused in the Jessica Lal case, and other accused persons in many other high-profile cases.

 

Right after the incident, the media trial begins and all media entities — print or electronic — more or less have similar focus in their stories. Worse, they even pronounce their judgement, which usually goes against the accused or the suspect.

 

With almost a propaganda-like zeal, the story is presented to the viewers as if the accused is really the culprit. In cases where the charge is not proved in the court, there are SMS campaigns, blogging outrages, candle-lit processions, and rallies to mobilize the citizens against the “injustice” done by the courts and to put the pressure on the appellate court.

 

I don’t know whether Santosh is the culprit or Manu Sharma has done anything or not, but so is the case with these hundred thousands of people who have been campaigning in the Jessica Lal and Priyadarshani Matto cases. If we are celebrating this new trend of holding anyone guilty by the media and the common people, then why do we have the judiciary and the criminal justice system? Let’s start having ballot boxes and put the name of all the suspects of a case for voting and ask common people to cast their vote, send SMSes and the suspect who would get the maximum SMSes and votes shall be held guilty and shall be punished. This will ensure speedy trial with cent-percent conviction rate. Is this what we are moving towards? Is this what we want?

 

In the criminal justice system, the guilt is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and if it’s not proved, then the person has to be set free. That’s the system we have been following. Law is governed by senses and not by emotions. While displaying our emotions, the media and the masses forget that it puts tremendous pressure on the judge presiding over the case. How can we expect a fair judgement from a judge who is under such tremendous pressure from all sections of the society?

A person is presumed to be innocent unless he is held guilty by the competent court, but here the trend, which has started and which is growing day by day, is to declare a person guilty right at the time of arrest.

 

The trial by media is a very serious thing and must be stopped before it takes a more vicious form. The media is there to report facts or news and raise public issues; it is not there to pass judgments. The media has a responsibility towards the society; it’s not for making money.

 

These big business houses running and controlling the major media players are showing anything that sells in the market, totally unconcerned about their responsibility. Media has an important role to play, but if that’s the direction in which they are headed, the courts need to take a bold step and issue a gag against them on matters that are sub-judice.

A couple of days back, a big hue and cry was created when Ram Jethmalani accepted the brief for Manu Sharma. I am not able to understand that what do we want? In that case we have one of the best lawyers of the country, Gopal Subramanium, appearing for the state and we want the case of Manu to be handled by some mediocre lawyer. Why can’t Jethmalani handle the case? Don’t we want to give equal opportunity to the defence to prove its case, or have we lost faith in the judiciary?

 

Through media trail, we have started to create pressure on the lawyers even — to not take up cases of accused, thus forcing these accused to go to trial without any defence. Is this not against the principles of natural justice? Being a lawyer, I believe that every person has a right to get himself represented by a lawyer of his choice and put his point before the adjudicating court and no one has the right to debar him from doing so. The media have to understand their limit before it becomes too late.