Freedom and democracy are inseparable. Democracy needs the media and for this reason, freedom of the media cannot be unbridled. Most of the countries from all across the globe have the same opinion about it. Nonetheless, the restrictions on media freedom must be reasonable and must be established by law. Prejudice and sub-judice notions are considered a hindrance to the administration of justice and are often contested on the grounds of unreasonably by the media. But at the same time, we witness several cases being affected by this trial by the media. Hence, there is a need to explore the extent of trial by media. In several countries, like the U.K., Australia, New Zealand etc., especially in criminal cases, before the information is circulated and published by both print and digital media, this must undergo serious scrutiny, otherwise it is treated as prejudicial and a violation of due process. The prejudicial information and publication can prejudice the minds of the Adjudicators, Judges and even the Jurors. The Supreme Court of India has also accepted in many cases the ‘subconsciously’ prejudiced notion in Judges. After the K. M. Nanavati case, Jury Trial was stopped because of such trial media interference in the administration of justice. In the context of freedom of speech and expression some contradictory views, widening the scope of media freedom are articulated by U.S. Courts as in the U.S.A. the restrictions are narrower than the expression of restrictions in India and only the test of clear and present danger has to be satisfied. Broader reasonable restrictions are imposed in India but actual prejudice of judges in the case is not necessary for Contempt Law proceedings. If substantial risk of prejudice is involved in the matter then it would only be considered contempt. As per the public perception, the doctrine of “Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done” allows Judges to be subconsciously prejudiced in the U.K. and Australia to an extent. The ‘course of justice’ and the ‘administration of justice’ are rescued under the Contempt Law. Therefore, an impartial trial emphasises non-interference with the rights of the suspect or the accused. Because of the above, this research paper critically analyses the different legislation and law commission reports prevailing in the administration of justice all across the globe, such as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (India) and the 200th Law Commission Report of India to demarcate the extent of trial by media in the fair administration of justice. Through a comparative analysis, a standard constitutional approach can be put forward to address the emerging legal challenges of media freedom in the twenty-first century.

Progress or Regress Through Media Freedom: A Due Process to Protect Liberty

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Tulishree Pradhan

摘要

Freedom and democracy are inseparable. Democracy needs the media and for this reason, freedom of the media cannot be unbridled. Most of the countries from all across the globe have the same opinion about it. Nonetheless, the restrictions on media freedom must be reasonable and must be established by law. Prejudice and sub-judice notions are considered a hindrance to the administration of justice and are often contested on the grounds of unreasonably by the media. But at the same time, we witness several cases being affected by this trial by the media. Hence, there is a need to explore the extent of trial by media. In several countries, like the U.K., Australia, New Zealand etc., especially in criminal cases, before the information is circulated and published by both print and digital media, this must undergo serious scrutiny, otherwise it is treated as prejudicial and a violation of due process. The prejudicial information and publication can prejudice the minds of the Adjudicators, Judges and even the Jurors. The Supreme Court of India has also accepted in many cases the ‘subconsciously’ prejudiced notion in Judges. After the K. M. Nanavati case, Jury Trial was stopped because of such trial media interference in the administration of justice. In the context of freedom of speech and expression some contradictory views, widening the scope of media freedom are articulated by U.S. Courts as in the U.S.A. the restrictions are narrower than the expression of restrictions in India and only the test of clear and present danger has to be satisfied. Broader reasonable restrictions are imposed in India but actual prejudice of judges in the case is not necessary for Contempt Law proceedings. If substantial risk of prejudice is involved in the matter then it would only be considered contempt. As per the public perception, the doctrine of “Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done” allows Judges to be subconsciously prejudiced in the U.K. and Australia to an extent. The ‘course of justice’ and the ‘administration of justice’ are rescued under the Contempt Law. Therefore, an impartial trial emphasises non-interference with the rights of the suspect or the accused. Because of the above, this research paper critically analyses the different legislation and law commission reports prevailing in the administration of justice all across the globe, such as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (India) and the 200th Law Commission Report of India to demarcate the extent of trial by media in the fair administration of justice. Through a comparative analysis, a standard constitutional approach can be put forward to address the emerging legal challenges of media freedom in the twenty-first century.