'Justice delayed is justice denied' is a cliché.
That is why, a wag has said in a seminar at Mumbai that 'why not appoint the
media persons as the judges in all courts?' In his view, trial by media
is most inexpensive and expeditious way of delivery. There is a no need for the
police to register the crime, investigate and frame the charges. There is no
need for the Courts to afford any opportunity for 'admission and denial' or to
allow examination and cross-examination of anybody. Collection of evidence will
also not be required. Mere debates by some 'omniscient' people in the studio of
the television channels will be enough to pronounce the judgment for or against
the accused or victim.
It may be ludicrous to the most but it is,
nonetheless, true that media persons level the charges (sometimes some body
else level those charges) and then the debaters become the jury and the judge
to pronounce the judgments. Take for example, the recent case of two girls from
Rohtak, who were shown to be the victims of molestation by three young boys in
a moving bus. It was reported in the media that two brave heart girls faced the
molestation attempt by three young boys; incidentally, two of them were selected
in the army. The allegation of these girls is that when three boys were trying
to molest them in the running bus not even one of the passengers came to their
rescue. Then one of these courageous and spunky girls started thrashing those
boys, while the other got busy in making the video through her mobile phone.
This video became viral and, within no time, it was the topic of hot TV
debates. The warriors of studios made the post mortem of the criminal law and
the safety of the women.
No body bothered to know the other side of the
story. They chastised the fellow passengers and wanted them to be booked for
complicit in the crime. All participants shamed the hapless bus conductor and
the driver in the harshest possible language. But the anchors of the news
channels reserved their ire against the political leaders, police
administration and even the general public was not spared. Media pronounced the
judgment in favour of the ‘victim’ girls and against the boys in less than an
hour. Haryana Government lost no time in suspending the driver and conductor of
the bus. The state government also announced the bravery awards to be given to
both gutsy girls on 26 January, the Republic Day.
However, the next day when the other version of
the story came when many passengers including an old woman, tried to lodge a
report against these two girls in a police station. Unnerved by the criticism
of the media the police refused to lodge the report of the old woman against
the girls. But such things do not remain hidden for very long time, that too,
when the girls and other passengers belong to the neighboring village. Almost
everybody blamed the girls who picked up the unnecessary quarrel for the sake
of seats in the bus.
An old woman also alleged that she was forcibly
removed from her seat and was asked to sit on a wheel tyre kept in the bus. It
is also said that the girls were traveling in the previous bus, which went out
of order and then passengers were loaded in the next bus in which the boys were
travelling. The girls insisted on sitting on the same seats, which were given
to them in the previous bus. These boys refused to accede to their demand and
the scuffle followed. Next day when the real facts came to the light, the
government withdrew the bravery awards to be given to the girls. It has also
come to the open that these 'courageous' girls have been in the habit of
creating such drama for the sake for the publicity. This also proves the point
that justice hurried is justice buried.
Media may gloat over its achievement (?) but
this has done no good to its credibility. The media, particularly the
electronic media, have been making such reports, which have not only been
unpalatable and unauthentic but these reports have also been malicious,
tendentious and defamatory. Not long ago, a news channel had converted an
innocent school teacher of Delhi, Miss Uma Shama into a pimp and the peddler of
the sex trade. It was alleged by the news channel that the said woman teacher
used to rope in girls of tender age to get them thrown into flesh trade.
However, after an inquiry it was found that the report was totally false and it
was aimed at spoiling the image, character and career of the woman teacher.
Based on the report the woman teacher was summarily dismissed from the job to
be reinstated only after getting the clean chit from the police.
It raises an important point. When the media has
become so powerful that it can make or destroy anybody’s image, should it
behave so irresponsibly as not to verify the facts before passing any judgment?
Should there not be any checks and balances for the media? Is there not an
urgent need for strong regulatory measures where the general public or any
aggrieved person can go for redeeming his or her prestige if the media has
deliberately spoiled it for the sake of TRP or sensation?
It may not be out of place to mention here that
aggrieved by a report that was broadcast on a T.V. channel, the eminent
lawyer Fali Nariman, who was arguing the case of Sahara India Ltd in the
Supreme Court had drwan the attention of the bench headed by the then
Chief Justice of India Mr. S. H. Kapadia. Justice Kapadia suo-motto took up the matter and issued notices to the government and other
agencies for replying so that the guidelines for the court reporting could be
framed.
Indian Federation of Working Journalists (IFWJ)
also got impleaded in the case and I argued the case before the court on behalf
of the IFWJ and vehemently opposed for framing of any guidelines because that
would amount to curtailing the freedom of speech and expression and, therefore,
would be unconstitutional. Ultimately, the court dropped the idea of framing
any guidelines for the court reporting. Other eminent lawyers like Ram Jeth
Malani, Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan etc. supported the IFWJ’s stand.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court reminded the media about its important role and
the responsibility in the society because an irresponsible media can always
wreak havoc. The IFWJ welcomed that decision of the Supreme Court that reminded
the media of its responsibility towards the society and the people, so
necessary for its credibility.
I wrote a comment on the decision of the Supreme
Court, which was carried in November 2012 issue of the ‘Shramjivi Kalamkar’ ,a
office journal of the UPWJU.
