Media

Media refers to mass media such as broadcast media, print media and the web media.
Television and radio are considered broadcast media while newspapers, magazines and
journals are known as print media and internet news, the web media. The media is an
important source of information through its news segments, entertainment and allows
for exchange of ideas, suggestions and comments.
Consumers nowadays have a variety of media outlets compared to a few decades ago.
The advent of the Internet and services provided through it, has enabled many of us to
gain access to instant and a variety of news and entertainment. In fact, the presence of
Internet also has led to creativity among the young consumers with the latter setting up
personal websites, blogs and others. It has inadvertently led many students to take
advantage of the prevalence of information by copying and plagiarizing writings from the
internet news. While the internet has been hailed as the most important advances
humankind has made in the 20th century, it is nevertheless open to abuse and
exploitation that presents danger to humans.
However, although most of us get our news through the media as many of us have little
time to read books or journals, the news presented to us can be biased and one sided.
During the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the United States and its allies, casualty figures of
their military personnel were highlighted and hardly any news on the figures for Iraqi
civilians and its military personnel. News reported on websites appears more reliable
and transparent though one has to be careful about the accuracy of the facts reported.
the media news too can misrepresent information to serve the objectives of certain
people or authorities in power.
In many Asian nations, there are limits to press freedom. Although the media is allowed
to present news and its views as well as perspectives, it is barred from providing news
that can potentially create unrest and violence. The government has instituted the
Official Secrets Act and Internal security act that allows it to detain anybody including
those working in the media for inciting racial or religious violence. However, there is still
a degree of freedom in these countries' press compared to other more conservative
countries. we have access to news from all around the world and readers are invited to
send their views and contributions to be published in the media.
The media is not only an important source of news and opinions but also entertainment.
Most young people usually turn on the television for movies, MTV and other
entertainment programs. the adults however, prefer news and more educational
programs.
Thus, the media plays an important role in our lives as we cannot envisage a life without
the daily reporting of national, regional and international news. It would be like returning

to the Stone Ages. However, consumers must ensure the news reported in the media is
accurate and not one-sided by looking at its contents critically and voicing their views on
certain issues.

TYPES OF MEDIA
1. Print The written word, including digital words like the ones you are
reading right now. This includes still photography and all the flat kinds of
art. from the late 15th century
2. Audio Spoken words, music, and other kinds of sound regardless of
distribution mechanism. From about 1900
3. Video Moving pictures regardless of the distribution mechanism. From
about 1900
4. Software Pretty much anything where you are interacting with an
automated system. This became a mass media with the personal
computer revolution. From about 1980
If you need to talk about how this media is transferred you could build a
related list of distribution mechanisms:
1. Physical Somebody drops a hunk of dead tree on your doorstep or you
buy a movie on physical media at a store and carry it home. Since
forever
2. Radio An analog or digital signal using radio waves. Since about 1900
3. Land Line An analog or digital signal travelling down a wire or hunk of
optical fiber. Since the late 1800s
4. Internet This actually happens on top of land lines and radio, but it
abstracts away all of that so well that it probably deserves to be its own
distribution mechanism. Since about 1995 (as a mass thing)

5. Undistributed Live performances or one-of-a-kind artifacts. The

consumer has to physically go somewhere to experience things that are
transferred this way. Since forever
And if you care about the style of distribution theres a third list:
1. Broadcast One producer, many consumers. The printing press started
this, arguably. Since the late 15th century
2. Peer to Peer Many producers, many consumers. For print this would
include letter writing. Since the invention of written language
3. Many to One Many producers, one consumer. This is used for things like
the census, tax returns, and polls. Since the invention of governments
Different Types of Media are Advertising media, various media, content, buying and placement for advertising
Electronic media, communications delivered via electronic or electromechanical energy
Digital media, electronic media used to store, transmit, and receive digitized information
Electronic Business Media, digital media for electronic business
Hypermedia, media with hyperlinks
Multimedia, communications that incorporate multiple forms of information content and
processing
Print media, communications delivered via paper or canvas
Published media, any media made available to the public
Mass media, all means of mass communication
Broadcast media, communications delivered over mass electronic communication
networks
News media, mass media focused on communicating news
News media (United States), the news media of the United States of America
New media, media that can only be created or used with the aid of modern computer
processing power
Recording media, devices used to store information
Social media, media disseminated through social interaction
Role of media
The right to freedom of expression enshrined therein gives the media not only a primary
role but also a paramount responsibility of expressing public opinion through a written
word. The media has been made the essential instrument for ensuring openness in

society in an attempt to polish, develop and civilize it by the process of analysis,

discussion and synthesis.
The role of media in a democracy assumes even greater significance when we
recognize the fact that in a society where an overwhelming majority of people are silent
listeners, to access to a forum that constantly reaches others has to be viewed as a
trust on their behalf for their progress and prosperity.
The oppression of the popular opinion and the restrictions on the media, in fact, go
together. This is why the worst form of control of media was found in Nazi Germany and
Fascist Italy.
In India too, during the days of emergency in 1975-77, strict censorship was imposed on
the media by the then government. A lot has been said and written about this step taken
by the government. Without going into its details we analyse its bare facts. During
emergency all fundamental rights of the citizen are taken away by the State. The
declaration of emergency was followed by censorship of the press and other media to
rule out the possibility of letting a popular opinion against the ruling party and
government to be formed.
Legal Environment
Although the constitution guarantees the freedoms of speech and expression, legal
protections are not always sufficiently upheld by the courts or respected by government
officials. A number of laws that remain on the books can be used to restrict media
freedom. The sedition law, formally Section 124A of the 1860 penal code, outlaws
expression that can cause hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection, toward the government. The 1923 Official Secrets Act empowers
authorities to censor security-related articles and prosecute members of the press.
State and national authorities, along with the courts, have also punished sensitive
reporting by using other security laws, criminal defamation legislation, bans on
blasphemy and hate speech, and contempt-of-court charges. In September 2014, police
in Assam arrested journalist Jaikhlong Brahma and accused him of having links with a
faction of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland, a separatist group. Amnesty
International reported that he was held without formal charges for several weeks under
the National Security Act, but was released on bail in December. Journalist Sudhir
Dhawale, who had been charged and jailed in 2011 under the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act (UAPA) and the sedition law due to allegations that he was supporting
the Maoist insurgency, was acquitted on all charges in May 2014 and released after
more than three years in prison.
In late 2013 the Sahara conglomerate brought a criminal defamation complaint against
journalist Tamal Bandyopadhyay, then deputy managing editor of the business

daily Mint, in connection with his book, Sahara: The Untold Story. The conglomerate
sought $32 million in damages. The case was withdrawn in April 2014 after the parties
reached a settlement, and the court lifted a stay order on the books publication.
However, as part of the agreement, the book was required to carry a disclaimer stating
that it contained defamatory content. Also in April, business magnate Mukesh Ambani of
Reliance Industries Limited and his brother Anil Ambani of Reliance Anil Dhirubhai
Ambani Group served defamation notices through their respective corporations to three
journalists who wrote the book Gas Wars: Crony Capitalism and the Ambanis, which
details alleged irregularities in the pricing of natural gas in the country. Despite the
threat of legal repercussions, the journalists proceeded to publish and distribute the
book themselves. In the period surrounding the May 2014 elections, authorities at the
state and local level reportedly brought defamation charges against dozens of students
and professors for criticizing or mocking incoming prime minister Narendra Modi in their
campus publications.
Legal restrictions on and surveillance of internet content have been increasing in recent
years. In April 2013, the government announced the launch of a new program, the
Centralized Monitoring System, which for the first time would provide the government
with centralized access to all communications data and content that travel through
Indian telecommunications networks. The system would enable the government to listen
to telephone calls in real time and read text messages, e-mail, and chat conversations.
As noted by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the new system, coupled with
lengthy jail sentences for failing to comply with a government decryption order, could be
used against journalists who routinely rely on encryption and privacy to conduct their
work. The system was reportedly not fully operational at the end of 2014.
In January 2014, news outlets reported that the government would be deploying an
internet surveillance system known as NETRA, which would be capable of real-time
keyword analysis on a range of internet communications, from public tweets to private
e-mails, as well as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) traffic on services like Skype and
Google Talk. There was little public information about the projects status at years end.
These surveillance efforts are the latest in a series of setbacks for media freedom
online. Under the 2000 Information Technology Act (ITA), amended in 2008, the
government has the authority to block content, even if it is not obscene, whenever it is
the national interest to do so. Section 66A of the ITA criminalizes online information
intended to cause annoyance or inconvenience, among other loosely worded criteria,
and arrests under the provision continued to occur in 2014, particularly in response to
criticism of Modi on social media. However, a constitutional challenge of Section 66A
was pending before the Supreme Court at the end of the year.

Rules introduced in 2011 under the ITA compel internet companies to remove
objectionable content within 36 hours of receiving an official notice, and oblige
cybercafs to install surveillance cameras and submit records of their users online
activity to the government. Google and Facebook reports have detailed the number of
requests for user data that they receive from national governments, showing that India
is among the top countries in terms of number of requests. In 2014 India filed the
second-highest number of requests with Facebook, after the United States, and the
fourth highest with Google. In addition, Facebook reported that it restricted access to
over 10,000 pieces of information for India in 2014the most for any countrylargely
under Indian laws prohibiting criticism of a religion or the state.
Implementation of the landmark Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 has been mixed,
with the majority of requests blocked due to the laws broad categorical restrictions on
the release of information. The RTI Acts success has also been hindered by an overall
lack of awareness of the rights it guarantees, a large backlog of appeals and requests,
and widespread inefficiency within state and local governing bodies. As of late 2014,
Indias six main national political parties still refused to comply with the law despite a
June 2013 decision by the Central Information Commission holding that political parties
fall under the RTI Acts provisions as public authorities. In September, the Supreme
Court recalled rules issued by the government in 2012 that had restricted membership
on information commissions to retired judges and people with legal training.
While some state governments are making an effort to disseminate information about
the RTI Act, especially in rural and isolated areas, others are employing various means
to make requests more onerous. A number of activists who have attempted to use the
act to uncover abuses, particularly official corruption, have been harassed or even killed
in recent years. The Whistleblowers Protection Act was signed into law in May 2014,
almost four years after it was first introduced, but analysts raised concerns about its
limitations and enforceability. In December, media reports suggested that the
government planned to amend the law to create exceptions protecting information
related to national security.
The Press Council of India (PCI), an independent self-regulatory body for the print
media that is composed of journalists, publishers, and politicians, investigates
complaints of misconduct or irresponsible reporting, but does not have punitive powers.
The regulatory framework for the rapidly expanding broadcast sector does not presently
feature an independent agency that is free from political influence. The News
Broadcasters Association, an industry body that primarily represents the television
sector, issued a new set of self-regulatory guidelines in 2009, covering topics including
crime, violence, and national security in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack. A
series of scandals, including the 2012 arrests of two editors on charges of extortion,
prompted media critics to call for greater regulatory curbs on unethical journalism in

2013. In May of that year, the parliamentary committee on information technology

proposed establishing a statutory regulator for print and electronic media, but this had
not occurred by the end of 2014.
Access to the profession of journalism is open in India. Media industry groups and local
press freedom advocacy organizations generally operate without restrictions.
SUPREME COURT ON MEDIA
n a landmark judgment on Tuesday, the Supreme Court quashed Section 66A of the
Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, which clamped down on freedom of speech and
allowed the State to arrest people posting "offensive content".
The new judgment means, now on, no one will now be arrested for a Facebook post,
tweet or cartoon.
The court also quashed Section 118(D) of the Kerala Police Act, a similar Act that
enabled the state to arrest people.
The petition against Section 66 A was first filed by 23-year-old Shreya Singhal, after two
girls from Palghar were arrested in 2012 when one of them made a Facebook post on a
bandh called after the death of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, and the other liked it.
Seven other petitions, including those by People's Union for Civil Liberties,
Mouthshut.com and the Internet and Mobile Association of India followed and the SC
clubbed these together.
The SC observed that the petitions against the Section "raise very important and farreaching questions relatable primarily to the fundamental right of free speech and
expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India."
What did the SC observe?

A bench comprising Justices J Chelameswar and Rohinton F Nariman described the

wordings in the Section "open-ended, undefined and vague." It then struck down the
Section in its entirety, calling it unconstitutional and "violative of Article 19(1) (a) and not
saved under Article 19(2)".
Can one get posts removed now?
Only on a court order. The judgment said now on, no social media posts can be taken
out without a court order. Earlier, anyone could approach the police and posts could be
taken out and websites could be blocked. But the SC upheld Section 69A, under which
the Centre can issue directions to block an internet site, saying there are adequate
procedural safeguards.
But the reasons for blocking will have to be recorded in writing in such a blocking order.
How did Parliament pass the Act?
Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, one of the petitioners against the law, said the
bill was pushed in seven minutes without debate. The resolution against the bill was
moved by CPM's P Rajeev in Rajya Sabha and seconded by Chandrasekhar. "The
resolution was on the verge of being put to vote but the then law minister Kapil Sibal did
not want that and he assured to review it, but did not," said Chandrashekhar. He filed a
petition in 2013.
Which Websites were affected?
One of the hardest hit was Mouthshut.com, a consumer review website. "Everyone who
had a negative review, for example, a real-estate developer who had not delivered a flat
in time or an educational institution awarding fake degrees threatened Mouthshut to

remove anything negative from their website on similar but expansive grounds as
Section 66A," said lawyer Mishi Choudhary.
What's Mothshut.com saying?
Owner Faisal Farooqui said that he was "thrilled" that the rights of the people were
safeguarded. "We were harassed by the police who wanted details of people posting
fake ads, and I had also hoped that the big guys like Facebook and Twitter would take
this up. I'm quite relived today," he said.
How did social media receive judgment?
The moment it was announced, social media sites erupted in celebration. #Sec66A was
one of the top trends all day, with actors, politicians and activists tweeting. Internet
expert and Medianama editor Nikhil Pahwa said that even though provisions like
Section 79 and the cyber crime laws could still cause trouble, the SC should be
applauded for dividing freedom of speech in three sections.
'Even if a post is annoying, it's fine'
The SC ruling categorised freedom of speech in three sections: for discussions,
advocacy and incitement. Any expression that discusses or advocates cannot be
punishable under law. But those that incite violence will be punished. "It, more of less,
laid down a framework: that even if a post is annoying, it is fine. But, incitement is
problematic," said Internet expert and Medianama editor Nikhil Pahwa.

AUGUST 7, 2015
Expressing concern over misuse of social media and internet, particularly after the
controversial section 66A of the Information Technology Act was scrapped by the

Supreme Court, a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant said Parliament
should bring a new law to regulate the social media.
"Section 66A was quashed because it was not properly drafted and was vague. We can
ask Parliament to bring a new law. We have earlier also suggested Parliament to enact
a law on other issues and we can suggest it to pass a legislation on this issue also," the
bench said while hearing a bunch of petitions seeking scrapping of criminal defamation
law.
The court's observation came when senior advocate L Nageswara Rao informed the
bench that a message was recently circulated on WhatsApp that he was involved in a
case of Section 376 of IPC (rape). Rao told the bench that he came to know about the
malicious campaign only when secretary of Supreme Court Bar Association informed
him about it and he got calls from various people.
Senior advocate K Parasaran, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, also cited a
recent incident in which wrong information regarding him was widely circulated on the
social media.
Rao, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu government, strongly pleaded for retention of the
defamation law. He said in the present era of internet and social media, such criminal
provision has become more relevant.
The bench agreed that people should not be given free hand to run malicious campaign
on social media and a new law should be enacted to curb such acts.
In March, the apex court had quashed the controversial provision in view of its misuse
by government authorities. "Section 66A is so widely cast that virtually any opinion on
any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of
the day would be caught within its net. Such is the reach of the section and if it is to
withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect of free speech would be total,"
the court had said.
SEPTEMBER 2012
The Supreme Court on Tuesday set forth a principle of postponement of publication
in its bid to balance the rights of freedom of press and fair trial. Mapping out a
Lakshman Rekha for the media on judicial proceedings,it,however,stopped short of
drawing it across the board.
As per the constitutional principle laid down by the court,an aggrieved party can move a
high court or the Supreme Court seeking deferment of publication on a sub-judice
matter. After going through the alleged offending publication and its effect,the court
concerned can pass appropriate orders.

However,such guidelines on reporting cannot be framed across the board,a fivejudge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said in its order in an open
court.
What constitutes an offending publication would depend on the decision of the court
on a case to case basis such orders of postponement should be for short duration
and without disturbing the content of the publication it should be applied only in cases
of real and substantial risk of prejudice to proper administration of justice or to the
fairness of trial.
The order was passed on complaints alleging breach of confidentiality during the
hearing of a dispute between Sahara Group and market regulator SEBI. Certain
documents regarding the dispute had got leaked to the media.
The court said the media was free to challenge the postponement of publication orders
in appropriate proceedings,adding that the orders were permissible under the
inherent powers of the court and constituted reasonable restriction on the fundamental
right to freedom of speech and expression.
The bench further described the postponement orders as a neutralising device,not
punitive but preventive,to be passed by a writ court if any other alternative
remedy,such as change of venue or postponement of trial,failed to balance conflicting
societal interests of right to know versus fair administration of justice.
It also said that postponement orders will protect the media from getting prosecuted or
punished for committing contempt.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/print/sc-clears-curbs-oncourt-reporting/#sthash.Ce4U7IqX.dpuf
* Supreme Court says it cant frame guidelines on media reporting across the board.
* SC says temporary postponement on reporting a matter can be sought by aggrieved
party by moving appropriate court.
* Journalists should know the Lakshman Rekha so that they dont cross the line of
contempt,SC says.
* Freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right under our
Constitution,says the apex court.
* SC says doctrine of postponement of reporting has been evolved as a preventive
measure and not as a prohibitive and punitive measure.
* SC says doctrine of postponement of reporting has been evolved as a preventive
measure and not as a prohibitive and punitive measure.
* The reasonable restriction on publication of court proceedings is for societal interest.
The Supreme Court today laid down a constitutional principle where aggrieved parties
can seek from appropriate court the postponement of the publication of court hearings
and a decision taken on a case-by-case basis.
The court,however,refrained from framing broad guidelines for reporting of sub-judice
court matters,saying it cannot be done across the board.
The bench observed that freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right
under the Constitution and the journalists should understand the Lakshman rekha so
that they do not cross the line of contempt.

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said it was laying down the
constitutional principle which will allow the aggrieved parties to seek from appropriate
court the postponement of the publication of court hearings.
The bench said the concerned court will decide the question of postponement of
reporting court proceedings on case-by-case basis.
We are not framing guidelines but we have laid down constitutional principle and
appropriate writ courts will decide when the postponement order has to be passed on
case-by -case basis, the bench also comprising justices D K Jain,S S Nijjar,Ranjana
Prakash Desai and J S Khehar said.
Hence,guidelines on media reporting cannot be framed across the board, the bench
said.
While propounding the doctrine of postponement of publication of court proceedings,the
bench said it is a preventive measure and not a prohibitive and punitive measure.
It further said that temporary ban on publication of court proceedings is necessary to
maintain balance between freedom of speech and fair trial for proper administration of
justice.
The bench said the postponement of publication of court proceedings would be required
where there is a substantial risk of prejudicing the trial and administration of justice.
Further the CJI,who read the judgement,said reasonable restrictions on reporting of
court proceedings were needed for societal interest and this doctrine of postponement
is one of neutralising technique.
The apex court has undertaken the exercise of framing guidelines after receiving
complaints of breach of confidentiality during the hearing of a dispute between Sahara
Group and market regulator SEBI.
The issue of breach of confidentiality came up when certain documents regarding the
dispute between Sahara and SEBI were leaked to the media.
However,once the hearing had started from March 27,the court had expanded its ambit
and gave opportunity to others who in the recent past had felt aggrieved due to the
publication and broadcast of sub-judice matters.
The constitution bench relied on a catena of judgements from foreign countries like
United States of America,England,Canada,Germany,Australia and New Zealand along
with the judgements of Indian courts to arrive at a conclusion that postponement of
publication of court proceedings in certain cases was necessary to strengthen the
balance between free speech and fair trial for proper administration of justice.
It clarified that the order on postponement of publication of court proceedings has to be
passed by the writ court subject to the twin test of necessity and proportionality.
The postponement of publication has to be for short duration without disturbing the
essence of the proceeding.
While observing that the postponement of publication cannot be viewed as punitive
measure,the bench said such steps are necessary to protect the journalists from
venturing into the contempt area.
The bench had reserved its judgement on May 3 after 17 days of hearing.
During earlier hearings,the bench had permitted all parties to present their views and
subsequently the Press Council of India,the Editors Guild of India,the National
Broadcasters Association and some national dailies and individual reporters had argued
in the case opposing any regulation on media reporting.

While majority of the parties were of the view that the apex court did not have inherent
powers to lay guidelines on the issue which falls in the domain of legislature,some had
favoured guidelines to protect the interest of the litigants.
The bench had said it wanted to have a proper balance between Article 21 (Right to Life
and Liberty) and Article 19 (1)(a)(Freedom of Speech and Expression) of the
Constitution.
It had observed that its intervention is required to safeguard administration of justice in
the absence of any specific law to regulate legal reporting and had came out with the
idea of temporary ban on sub-judice matters which was opposed by journalist groups.
Judicial Activism of Media Judicial Activism of Media By Dr. Shobha Ram Sharman* Cite
as: (2010) PL July Access to information is essential to the health of democracy. The
rule of law may be further institutionalised by support for an independent media that
keeps a check on the judiciary, reports on the courts, and promotes a legally enabling
environment suitable for press freedom.1 Public interest is defined as
representing a plurality of voices both through a greater number of outlets and through
the diversity of views and voices reflected within one outlet.2 The press and the media
have been recognised as the greatest influencing factors. The power with them carries
with it an obligation to act with responsibility and creativity. But, there are symptoms of
negativity in the media. In the context of the judiciary, the positive performance is not
highlighted, but failure, howsoever insignificant it may be, is picked up, blown out of
proportion and publicised.3 Historical background of media trial Trial by media is a
phrase, popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century, to describe the impact of
television and newspaper coverage on a persons reputation by creating a
widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. In the United
Kingdom there is a heated debate between those who support a free press which is
largely uncensored and those who place a higher priority on an individuals right to
privacy and right to a fair trial. Although a recently coined phrase, the idea that popular
media can have a strong influence on the legal process goes back certainly to the
advent of the printing press and probably much further. This is not including the use of a
State controlled press to criminalise political opponents, but in its commonly understood
meaning covers all occasions where the reputation of a person has been drastically
affected by ostensible non-political publications. One of the first celebrities in the 20th
century to be arguably tried by the media was Roscoe Fatty Arbuckle who was
acquitted by the courts but nevertheless lost his career and reputation due to the media
coverage. Parallels can be drawn between these cases and the trial of O.J. Simpson.
The connection is less about guilt or innocence but about the promotion of the media
coverage in the public mind above the status of the court. Another interesting case in
US was the Rodney King incident and subsequent trial of the police officers involved.
Once again an acquittal is challenged by the media reporting with violent
consequences. What makes this case particularly important historically is the fact that it

was an amateur video footage which provided the key evidence of perceived guilt. As
video cameras and their digital successors and CCTV become more widespread, this
type of caught on camera incident becomes more and more common. This can
pose real problems for the legal system as the evidence they provide may be
inadmissible for technical reasons (e.g. not being able to pinpoint exact times) but they
give very strong images for the media (and public) to seize upon and the potential to
manipulate by editing. Even where a criminal court finds somebody guilty the media can
still appear to sit in judgment over their sentence. Examples include Myra Hindley
whose proposed release from prison after thirty years was widely condemned by the
British press (the argument became moot when she died in 2002); Maxine Carr who,
having served her sentence, has been released and is, according to some
commentators being demonised by the press. One case popularised by the
media between 1980 and 1982 was the murder trial of Lindy Chamberlain in Australia
who was convicted for killing her baby, but later released in 1986 on new evidence
showing that a dingo had in fact committed the act as was originally claimed by
Chamberlain. The motion picture A Cry in the Dark, depicted Chamberlain, as played by
actress Meryl Streep, caught in a trial by media which fed the publics, and
subsequently the jurys false conviction of her. Often the coverage in the press can
be said to reflect the views of the person in the street. However, more credibility is
generally given to printed material than water cooler gossip. The responsibility
of the press to confirm reports and leaks about individuals being tried has come under
increasing scrutiny and journalists are calling for higher standards. There was much
debate over US President Bill Clintons impeachment trial and prosecutor Kenneth
Starrs investigation and how the media handled the trial by reporting commentary
from lawyers which influenced public opinion. Another example was the investigation
into biologist Steven Hatfill allegedly sending anthrax through the US mail as a terrorist
attack, which resulted in no conviction, but Hatfill went on to sue as his reputation was
severely tarnished and career destroyed. Families and friends of persons convicted of
crimes have apparently successfully used the power of the media to reopen cases, such
as the Stephen Downing case in Derbyshire where a campaign by a local newspaper
editor resulted in a successful appeal and his release after twenty-seven years in
prison. In India, trial by media has assumed significant proportions. It has had both
positive and negative results. However, many would think that the overall impact is for
the betterment of the society. Some famous criminal cases that would The Practical
Lawyer http://www.supremecourtcases.com Eastern Book Company Generated:
Sunday, February 21, 2016 have gone unpunished but for the intervention of the media
are Priyadarshini Mattoo case, Jessica Lal case, Nitish Katara murder case and Bijal
Joshi rape case. The media, however, drew flak in the reporting of murder of Aarushi
Talwar, when it pre-empted the court and reported that her own father Dr. Rajesh
Talwar, and possibly her mother Nupur Talwar were involved in her murder, thus reviving
memories of Jon Benet Ramsey murder, which was hauntingly similar. CBI later

declared that Rajesh was not the killer. Between September 2004 and March 2005, the
mediaprint, audio and visual all wrote about His Holiness Shri Jayendra Saraswathi
Swamigal, a Hindu religious leader, suggesting his guilt in a murder case, but the High
Courts of Madras and Andhra Pradesh and the Supreme Court of India repeatedly
found that there was no material evidence to find him guilty and came down heavily on
the media and the Government of Tamil Nadu for misuse of government machinery.
Rights of media Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 No civil or criminal action will
lie against a newspaper for publishing a faithful and fair report of proceeding of a court,
though it may contain matter disparaging to the character of an individual. This is saved
by Exception 4 to Section 499 IPC. Publication of a fair criticism of a judicial act
including a judicial decision is protected under Section 5. Section 3(1) exempts innocent
publication, if the publisher had no reasonable grounds for believing that the
proceeding was pending. Subsection (2) says that there is no contempt if no civil or
criminal proceeding is pending. Sub-section (3) exempts similar distributions where
similar belief as in sub-section (2) existed. Explanation to Section 3 mentions when a
judicial proceeding is to be treated as pending. So far as a criminal case is
concerned, it says pendency starts when the charge-sheet or challan is filed or when
the court issues summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused and in
any other case, when the court takes cognizance of the matter to which the proceeding
relates. The case is treated as pending till appeals/revisions are decided. Section 4
protects fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings. Section 7 mentions when
publication of information relating to proceeding in chambers or in camera is not
contempt.4 Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India Since in India freedom
of expression is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it has been held
by the Supreme Court5 that freedom of the press is included in that wider
guarantee, it is necessary to plead for the freedom of the press in the country.
International Law The 1998 Declaration recognises a journalist as a human rights
defender and adds a critical momentum to the protection of human rights and its
defenders worldwide.6 The Universal Declaration, the European Convention and other
international human rights agreements explicitly protect freedom of expression
regardless of frontiers, a phrase especially pertinent to the fast evolving media
around the globe,7 particularly under Article 19, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights; Article 19, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and under
Article 10, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. Media reporting of court proceedings It has indeed become a
disturbing feature that the accused persons, after their remand by the Magistrate, are
brazenly paraded before the press and interviews are being allowed. In cases where
there is a test identification parade or the accused person is identified by a witness, the
case of the prosecution is vulnerable to attack on the ground of exposure of the
accused persons to public glare, weakening the impact of the identification. Further,
police custody is given by the court to the investigating authorities on the premise that

the accused is required for the purpose of investigation. This custody is not to be
misused by allowing the media to interview the accused persons when they are in police
custody under the orders of the court.8 The case of rape victims There is unnecessary
sensationalisation in rape cases wherein the media try to dig into the victims sexual
history. There are rape shield statutes in the United States which prohibit
disclosure of information about a victims sexual history during trial and victim
rights statutes which enable rape victims to claim certain rights in relation to privacy
and claim heavy damages in case of violation of such right. Though there are judicial
guidelines on the matter in India, there has to be a legislation modeled on the US
pattern. And the documents which tend to undermine the dignity of women and children
should be safeguarded from the medias prying eyes.9 State of Maharashtra v. R.J.
Gandhi10 The case was one of rape on an eight-year-old girl and the offence was
committed at Kolhapur and the case was to be tried there. But because of public outcry,
the plea of the accused for a fair trial was accepted and the case was transferred by the
Supreme Court to the Sessions Court at Satara. Confirming the conviction and
adverting to the harm caused to the victim, the Supreme Court said: A trial by
press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of rule of law. It can well
lead to miscarriage of justice. A judge has to guard himself against such pressure and
he is to be guided strictly by rule of law. A free press is the sine qua non of a
democratic society and is a bulwark of freedom of speech and expression and freedom
of information.11 But the question arises, how far is it right to manipulate the general
publics mind towards a particular conclusion when the trials are still in tube?
Restrictions on media Under the Indian Constitution The Supreme Court and High
Courts are empowered to intervene and punish the publication of any matter, which
causes prejudice to a pending proceeding, to keep the stream of justice clear and pure
so that parties may proceed with safety both to themselves and to their character.12
That is The Practical Lawyer http://www.supremecourtcases.com Eastern Book
Company Generated: Sunday, February 21, 2016 why, clause (2) of Article 19(1)
permits imposition by law of reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this freedom in
the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, the
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to
the contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.13 Under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal
contempt as the publication, (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs,
or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act
whatsoever which prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of
any judicial proceedings; or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to
obstruct, the administration of justice in any manner. It prohibits such publication
where it is prohibited by a statute or by the court on certain grounds such as security of
the State, public order and the like. Misrepresentation or misreporting of court
proceedings may amount to contempt, if it can be shown that further proceedings are

likely to be prejudiced by such misreporting. No person can flout the mandate of law of
respecting the courts for establishment of rule of law under the cloak of freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.14 Proposed amendments in the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 The 17th Law Commission in its 200th Report year 2007
took up suo motu the subject of trial by media. It enclosed a draft bill with its
recommendations to the Government, suggesting amendments to the Contempt of
Courts 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. 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.15 Other
restrictions Various reasonable restrictions have been imposed by the numerous
statutes on this freedom of press and mass media. Some of them arethe Penal
Code, 1860 (Sections 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 171-4, 295-A, 499, etc.); the Indecent
Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986; the Information Technology Act, 2000;
the Newspapers (Incitement to offences) Act, 1908; the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting
Corporation of India) Act, 1990; the Telegraph Act, 1885; the Radio, Television and
Video Cassette Recorders Sets (Exemption from Licensing Requirements) Rules, 1997;
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000; the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971; the Official Secrets Act, 1923; the Parliamentary Proceedings
(Protection of Publication) Act, 1977; the Representation of the People Act, 1951
(Sections 123, 125, 127-A, etc.); the Press Council Act, 1978; the Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and others. Trial by media Nowadays, the
sensationalism involved in certain high profile criminal cases has become very common
with the spread of mass communication. Example can be taken from the recent Aarushi
murder case. This invariably leads to the issue of prejudicial publicity placing one or the
other party involved in a disadvantaged position besides creating situation which tends
to reduce legitimate space for dispassionate assessment of the truth by judicial officers.
Moreover, such media trials unnecessarily draw the judiciary into the public scanner,
often making a mockery of the justice delivery system. The Supreme Court observed in
Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India16 in the hawala cases that the publicity
attached to the matters should not affect the essentials of a fair trial including the
presumption of innocence. In September 2006, 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.
And in November 2007 the Chief Justice of India, speaking in Bangalore, urged judges
not to feel pressured by the disturbing trend of the media creating 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 cant be any conviction. Judges are confused because media has already
given a verdict. M.P. Lohia v. State of W.B.17 was a case of dowry death, the

investigation was in progress and special leave petition was pending before the Court.
Even then an article had appeared in the magazine called Saga titled Doomed by
Dowry written by Kakoli Poddar based on her interview of the family of the
deceased. The facts narrated therein were all materials that could be used in the
forthcoming trial of the case and the court said that these type of articles appearing in
the media would certainly interfere with the administration of justice. To make
accountable to the people, an independent autonomous public institution like the Media
Council is, therefore, a constitutional need. In some countries, it is established by the
various constituents of the media as a voluntary organisation, while in other countries
like ours, it is constituted by the legislature under a statute. These bodies by whatever
name they may be called and whether voluntary or statutory, evolve a code of conduct
or of ethics for the media with regard to honesty and fairness; duty to seek the views of
the subject of any critical reportage in advance of publication; duty to correct factual
errors; duty to provide an opportunity to reply to critical opinions as well as to the critical
factual reportage; appearance as well as to the critical factual reportage; appearance as
well as reality of objectivity; duty to distinguish between facts and opinions; duty not to
prejudice the guilt of an accused and to publish the dismissal of charges against or
acquittal of anyone about whom the paper previously had reported that charges have
been filed or that a trial had commenced.18 Conclusion The profession journalism has
lost its sanctity and now the mantra is News is what sells. The problem The
Practical Lawyer http://www.supremecourtcases.com Eastern Book Company
Generated: Sunday, February 21, 2016 with the medias 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 Dutts show, 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 the people like us. 19
Because of preconceived notions about the accused different treatments are given by
the media, and that is how sometimes the accused gains unwarranted hatred or
sympathy from the public in general. Before the judgment is pronounced, before any
verdict is given by the court, the accused either becomes a criminal or innocent in the
eyes of the public. In the case of Sanjay Dutt, media is handling the case
sympathetically whereas Manu Sharma has already been announced guilty by the
media. In the words of Senior Advocate Mr Ram Jethmalani: The press thinks they
are judges of who is a devil and who is not.20 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.21 Media has an important role to play in a
democratic society. The job is to keep the society informed about the happenings which
have a direct or indirect impact on it and not to draw conclusions. Media should be a
tool to achieve justice and not to defeat it.

REFERENCE
http://indianexpress.com/article/news-archive/print/sc-clears-curbs-on-court-reporting/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social/SC-calls-for-new-law-to-regulate-socialmedia/articleshow/48384370.cms
http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?
option=com_content&itemid=1&do_pdf=1&id=18651
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-section-66a-scrapped-supreme-court-addsmuscle-to-social-media-2071737
*Lecturer in Law, Govt. Law College, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). - The Role of Media in
Democracy: A Strategic Approach, 1999, Center for Democracy and Governance. Ibid. Justice R.C. Lahoti, Speech on Law Day, (2005) 2 SCC (Jour) 1 at p. 6.
M. Jagnnadha Rao, Fair Trial or Free Press? Laws Response to Trial by
Media, Constitutionalism, Human Rights & Rule of Law, Universal Law Publishing
Co. (P) Ltd. at p. 97.
Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578 at p. 614. - A.H. Monjurul
Kabir, Law & Our Rights. - Ibid.
State v. Mohd. Afzal, 107 (2003) DLT 385 at p. 443, para 139.
Lekshmi Vijayabalan, Refresher Course on Court Media Relations in Advancing
the Cause of Justice, held between Feb. 5-27, 2005, Vol. 2, Newsletter of the
National Judicial Academy, December 2005 at p. 60. - AIR 1997 SC 398.
Such arguments are reflected in the Commonwealth Privacy Act, wherein the media has
been excluded from the purview of privacy.

Justice A.M. Ahmadi, Interrelationship Between Law, Media and the Judiciary, Vol. 4-7,
1997-2000, United Lawyers Association, p. 75.
Justice R.S. Sarkaria, Freedom of Information and its Responsibilities, Vol. 15, The
Press Council of India Review, 1994.
Arundhati Roy, In re, (2002) 3 SCC 343 : AIR 2002 SC 1375 at p. 1380.
Sevanti Ninan, Trials on the Tube, The Hindu Magazine (Delhi Edn.), 12-112006. - (1996) 6 SCC 354. - (2005) 2 SCC 686.
P.B. Sawant J., Media and the Constitution, Vol. 18, The Press Council of India Review,
1997, p. 9. - Supra, n. 15. - Ibid. - Ibid.