The Supreme Court has cautioned the media against interference in pending investigations and trials. According to The Hindu newspaper, Justice Sathasivam, writing the 229-page judgement in the Jessica Lal case, said on Monday, “The freedom of speech protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution has to be carefully and cautiously used, so as to avoid interference in the administration of justice and leading to undesirable results in matters sub judice.” The Bench of Justices P Sathasivam and Swatanter Kumar said, “Presumption of innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending. In that event, it will be opposed to the very basic rule of law and would impinge upon the protection granted to an accused under Article 21.”

It can be pointed out, though, that the media has rendered a desirable service in several recent cases, including those of Priyadarshini Mattoo, Nitish Katara and Ruchika Girhotra, to name just a few, besides of course Jessica Lal. It can even be argued that justice would probably not have been rendered if the media had not reflected the anguish of the society at large over these criminal cases.

The question, therefore, arises: is the media really guilty of interference in justice? Would the cause of justice be better served if the media refrained from extensive coverage of such cases? Are the courts really pressurised into subverting justice under duress by the proactive media?