Trial by Media: a Complete True Image or Farce or Intruding in Judicial Powers?
Main Article Content
Abstract
Media plays a very significant role in modern life and for the growth of a healthy democracy. It is a great public educator. Many people obtain bulk of their information on matter of contemporary interest from the media. It exercises tremendous influence over millions of people. In this research paper discussed about trial by media in Indian perspective take issue with complete true image or farce or intruding in judicial powers.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors AIR 1958 SC 578; Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 195 SC 129; Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India AIR 1962 305; Bata India Ltd. v. A.M. Turaz and Ors (2013) 53 PTC 536 (Del).
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149; Secretary Minister of I&B, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161; also see, Singh Anil, Right to Information and Democracy: Legal Position in India, International Journal for Legal Development and Allied Issues, Vol. 1(2), (2015), at p. 30.
Rajnish, Emergence of Investigative Journalism, Sumit Enterprises, New Delhi, (2007), at p. 120.
Malik R.K., Media Trial in India: Pros and Cons, IRJCL, Vol. 3(3), (March, 2016), at pp. 8–17.
Singh A.P. and Mohan Madan, Media: Facilitating Justice or Hampering Justice?, Indian Bar Review, Vol. XXXIII, (2006), at p. 237. 6. Rajnish, supra note 3, at p. 120.
Nandani Satpathi v. P.L. Dani AIR 1978 SC 1025.
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Sajid Beg Asif Beg Mirza v. State of Gujarat, judgment order dated 22nd January, 2007.
Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution provides that: ―No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution provides that: ―No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
Sarvan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637.
The Target Forever‖, Tahalka, Vol. 5(46), (22nd November, 2008), at p. 26.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568; R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1295.
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632.
Justice Sawant P.B., Media and Judiciary, Statesman, (28th March, 2005), at editorial page.
Supra note 10.
Alvi Naziya, Media Raising the Prove Bar, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, (20th February, 2007), at p. 6.
Ranran S., Media on Trial, Times of India, New Delhi, (26th January, 2007), at p. 16.
Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that: ―Previous bad character not relevant except in reply—in criminal proceeding the fact that the accused person had a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a character in which case it become relevant.‖ Example 1: This section does not apply to case in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue. Example 2: A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.
Singh A.P. and Mohan Madan, supra note 5, at p. 239. 24. B.N. Kashyap v. Emperor AIR 1945 Lah 23–26. 25. Dwijesh Chandra Roy v. Naresh Chandra Gupta AIR 1945 Cal 492–493.
Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution permits the state to put reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the freedom of speech and expression on the ground of,—(a) sovereignty and integrity of India, (b) security of State, (c) friendly relation with foreign states, (d) public order, (e) decency and morality, (f) contempt of the Court, (g) defamation, (h) incitement of the offence.
Rajnish, supra note 3, at p. 120.
Ibid, at p. 121.
R. Sukany v. R. Sridhar AIR 2008 Mad 249.