The media, often celebrated as the "Fourth Estate," has historically been a watchdog, holding the powerful accountable and exposing injustices. Yet, in the modern landscape, this noble role has increasingly mutated into a force driven by profit motives, sensationalism, and an insatiable hunger for ratings. This transformation has led to a dangerous encroachment upon the judiciary, resulting in what is now commonly referred to as "media trials."

This phenomenon, where media outlets pronounce judgments long before courts do, has not only compromised the right to a fair trial but also severely affected victims and their families. This undue interference by the media often distorts public perception, creating a parallel court of public opinion. The principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" is frequently sacrificed, with suspects being vilified before any judicial verdict. Complex legal issues are reduced to oversimplified, sensational headlines, undermining the nuances of judicial reasoning.

Justice Markandey Katju rightly observed:
"Trial by media is an unwarranted interference in the administration of justice." This interference is often masked as investigative journalism but, in reality, it frequently distorts facts, promotes half-truths, and prioritizes viewer engagement over justice.

As Justice S.H. Kapadia emphasized:
"The freedom of the press is the mother of all liberties, but it cannot trample upon the right to a fair trial." In the relentless competition for viewership, news channels often craft narratives that are premature and prejudiced. Accused individuals are demonized, victims are objectified, and legal proceedings are reduced to prime-time spectacles. This trend undermines independence, pressures investigative agencies, and exploits the pain of those seeking justice.

One of the most tragic manifestations of this media-driven frenzy was the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case of 2008. A 14-year-old girl, Aarushi, was found murdered in her bedroom, followed by the death of their domestic worker, Hemraj. What ensued was a grotesque media spectacle. Without substantial evidence, the media portrayed Aarushi's parents as coldblooded murderers, suggesting salacious motives involving honor killing and extramarital affairs. News channels aired re-enactments of the crime, creating a narrative that was more fiction than fact. When the Talwars were later acquitted, the media did not apologize; the damage to their reputation had already been irreparable.

The Sheena Bora murder case In 2015 followed a similar trajectory.
Instead of focusing on the victim, Sheena, the media spotlight shifted to her mother, Indrani Mukerjea's complicated personal life. Sheena was reduced to a side character as the media dissected Indrani's marriages, portraying the case as a twisted family drama. Sheena, the victim, was forgotten in the noise.

This pattern of sensationalism is not confined to metropolitan India. In Kerala's Walayar case, two minor sisters were found dead under suspicious circumstances in 2017. Initially, the media depicted their parents as grief-stricken victims seeking justice. However, later revelations suggested that the parents may have been complicit, having allegedly watched their daughters being sexually assaulted without intervening.
The media, which had once rallied behind the parents, was forced to retract its narrative. Yet, the dignity of the deceased girls remained forever violated.

Sensationalism in Kerala's Jisha Murder Case and Kevin Murder Case
Kerala, often hailed as a progressive state, has not been immune to the perils of media sensationalism. Two particularly harrowing cases — the Jisha murder case (2016) and the Kevin murder case (2018) — underscore the destructive impact of media overreach.

The Jisha murder case involved the brutal rape and murder of a 29-yearold law student in Perumbavoor. The crime sparked public outrage, but it also unleashed a media storm. News channels engaged in invasive reporting, disclosing graphic details of the crime scene and speculating on the victim's lifestyle. The media's disproportionate focus on the victim's personal life, rather than the systemic failures in ensuring women's safety, reflected a disturbing tendency to sensationalize suffering for viewership. This insensitivity not only distressed the victim's family but also diverted attention from the broader issues of security and legal reform.

The Kevin murder case Involved the death of a young man belonging to a lower caste, allegedly abducted and killed by his wife's relatives in an apparent case of caste-based honor killing. While media coverage initially helped bring attention to caste violence, it soon degenerated into intrusive reporting. Kevin's grieving wife was hounded by reporters for emotional reactions, her privacy repeatedly invaded. The coverage shifted from highlighting caste oppression to exploiting personal grief, turning a tragic death into a media spectacle.

These cases reveal how media sensationalism can distort justice-seeking processes. The press, instead of being a beacon of accountability, often becomes an amplifier of voyeuristic curiosity, exploiting tragedy under the guise of public interest.

Equally distressing was the coverage of the 2019 rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata. Sensational reports revealed intimate forensic details, including the victim's weight and the accused's physical limitations. These disclosures led to widespread speculation that the accused could not have acted alone. Public confidence in the investigation eroded, despite the availability of solid evidence. This undue pressure on investigative agencies and the judiciary exemplifies how media sensationalism can hinder the pursuit of justice.

The Jessica Lal case Is often cited as an instance where media activism secured justice. Jessica, a model, was shot dead in 1999 when she refused to serve liquor at a high-profile party. Manu Sharma, the accused, was initially acquitted due to witness tampering. Public outrage, fueled by persistent media coverage, led to a retrial and his eventual conviction.

While this is seen as a victory for media-driven justice, Jessica's sister, Sabrina Lal, later lamented the loss of privacy, expressing how their grief was exploited for TRPs.

However, the media's overreach is not always welcomed by the judiciary. In the Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. V. SEBI (2012) case, the Supreme Court condemned speculative reporting during pending cases.

Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan observed that "the freedom of speech must not violate the right to a fair trial." Similarly, in R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009), the court criticized a sting operation for manipulating public perception and cautioned against the media acting as both investigator and adjudicator. Justice B.N. Agrawal remarked, "Trial by media causes far more harm than good. The media cannot usurp the functions of the court."

A critical aspect of media sensationalism is the invasion of digital privacy. With the advent of the Information Technology Act, 2000, electronic evidence has gained judicial recognition. However, this has also led to the unauthorized dissemination of crime scene photos, victim images, and forensic reports. This unrestricted access allows news agencies to publish selective, often distorted, content.

The competition for ratings has exacerbated this problem. Sensational headlines, dramatic music, and emotionally charged anchors dominate prime-time slots. Lord Denning's warning remains ever relevant: "A trial by press, television, or other media is totally unacceptable. It usurps the function of the court."

Victims seeking justice are frequently subjected to public scrutiny. Families are reduced to hashtags—"Nirbhaya," "Aarushi"—stripped of their humanity. Moreover, accused individuals, often proven innocent later, struggle to rebuild their lives. The media seldom issues corrections or apologies.

Justice Rajeev Dhavan noted, "While the media can be the voice of the voiceless, it cannot become a voice that drowns the law." Investigative journalism must coexist with judicial sanctity.
The persistent conflict between media trials and judicial processes is a stark reminder that the pillars of democracy—free press and fair justice— can crumble if not held in delicate balance. While the media undeniably serves as the "Fourth Estate," championing public interest and exposing corruption, its transgression into the courtroom—both literally and figuratively—poses a grave threat to the administration of justice. This unchecked power to shape narratives and manipulate public sentiment has led to a dangerous overlap between media activism and media adjudication, blurring the lines between public discourse and judicial determination.

The transformation of newsrooms into makeshift courtrooms has resulted in a disturbing trend where journalists assume the roles of prosecutors, judges, and executioners—all under the guise of investigative journalism.
Prime-time debates often bear more resemblance to courtroom trials, with panelists pronouncing guilt, cross-examinations staged for spectacle, and verdicts declared based on conjecture rather than evidence. This unregulated practice not only prejudices ongoing investigations but also undermines the very essence of the legal system, which rests on the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The consequences are far-reaching and often irreversible.

Individuals accused of crimes are branded as criminals even before the trial begins, leading to social ostracization, loss of livelihood, and psychological trauma. Families of both victims and accused become collateral damage, with their grief exploited for prime-time viewership. Even when acquittals follow, the stain on one's reputation endures—a life-long punishment imposed not by the judiciary, but by an overzealous press. The Talwars in the Aarushi case, the parents in the Walayar case, and countless others stand as enduring reminders of how media overreach can destroy lives under the pretext of seeking justice.

Moreover, this phenomenon erodes public trust in the judiciary. When media-driven narratives dominate public opinion, the judiciary is inadvertently placed under pressure to conform to popular sentiment, threatening its independence. Judges may find themselves adjudicating cases in the shadow of public outrage, fearful that a legally sound acquittal might be misconstrued as injustice. This intrusion into judicial functioning corrodes the legal system from within, fostering a parallel justice mechanism where public perception, not legal reasoning, dictates outcomes.

Equally troubling is the erosion of victim dignity. Media houses, in their pursuit of higher ratings, often resort to graphic descriptions, speculative accounts, and invasive coverage. The Nirbhaya case coverage, while instrumental in awakening national consciousness, also revealed the dark side of sensational journalism—where the victim's suffering was repackaged into soundbites and crime scenes became theater sets. The Walayar sisters and the Kolkata doctor similarly became mere headlines, their dignity trampled upon in the race to break news.

This is not to discredit the positive role media has played in securing justice. The Jessica Lal case, the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, and several others demonstrate that responsible journalism can amplify public concerns and catalyze legal reform. However, these victories cannot justify a culture where media narratives routinely interfere with judicial proceedings. There is a fine line between investigative journalism and media vigilantism—a line that, when crossed, turns the protector of democracy into its saboteur.

The judiciary has made notable attempts to reign In this overreach. The Supreme Court's warnings in cases like Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. V. SEBI and R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court reflect judicial acknowledgment of the media's growing influence over legal processes. However, judicial pronouncements alone are insufficient. The need of the hour is a robust framework that enforces ethical journalism without infringing upon press freedom.

Regulatory bodies like the Press Council of India must be empowered with greater authority to penalize irresponsible reporting. Existing guidelines on media coverage of sub-judice matters require stricter enforcement. Media houses, too, must internalize the principle that they have to inform, not to convict. Sensationalism may guarantee viewership, but it exacts a heavy price—compromising justice, destroying lives, and eroding public confidence in the judiciary.

Ultimately, the media must remember its core purpose: to act as a bridge between the people and the truth. This bridge collapses the moment it seeks to replace the judiciary. As Justice Kapadia aptly stated, "Press freedom and fair trial are both essential. One cannot override the other." The media must reclaim its role as the conscience of society—a watchdog that holds power accountable but never wields it. Truth-seeking
must remain at the heart of journalism, but it must be a truth pursued with fairness, respect for human dignity, and unwavering faith in the judicial process. Justice delivered by the judiciary, not dictated by headlines, is the cornerstone of any democracy worth preserving.

The Law Commission of India's observations also highlights this fragile balance, stressing that media freedom should not transform into media tyranny.¹⁵ Courts have time and again expressed concern over this undue influence on judicial processes, particularly in high-profile cases, cautioning against the media's tendency to pronounce verdicts before courts do.¹⁸ Legal scholars such as Gopalakrishnan emphasize that trial by media can distort the course of justice and ultimately erode public confidence in judicial neutrality.

References:

1. Markandey Katju, Law in the Scientific Era (Universal Law Publishing Co. 2017).
2. Rajeev Dhavan, Publish and Be Damned: Censorship and Intolerance in India (Tulika Books 2008).
3. Law Commission of India, Consultation Paper on Trial by Media: Free Speech vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Aug. 2014), https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/TrialbyMedia.pdf.
4. R. Gopalakrishnan, Impact of Trial by Media on Fair Trial: An Analytical Study, 57(3) J. INDIAN L. INST. 339 (2015).
5. Aparna Shivpuri, Media Trials in India: Is Freedom of Press at Crossroads with Fair Trial?, 3 INT'L J. LEGAL DEV. & ALLIED ISSUES 28 (2017).
6. Anurag Chandra, Judicial Criticism of Media's Role in High-Profile Cases, 45 INDIAN BAR REV. 17 (2018).
7. Press Council of India, Norms of Journalistic Conduct (2019), https://presscouncil.nic.in/OldWebsite/NORMS-2019.pdf.