Opinion Media activism & trial

At long last justice was done in the Jessica Lal murder case. The rich and influential criminals were duly sentenced. The contention that the defence was prejudiced by the so-called media trial was rejected by the Supreme Court. There is a basic distinction between media activism and trial by media. If a prosecution gets blogged down for an inordinately long period,the media is certainly entitled,nay obliged to,probe and expose the causes for the delay. For example,the deliberate lethargic pace of the prosecution,frequent adjournments occasioned by absence of the public prosecutors or delaying tactics resorted to by the accused or frequent transfer of the presiding judicial officer in the midst of the trial and so on. The media,by publicising these facts,acts as a catalyst which is conducive to the speedy progress of the trial. Media activism of this nature is commendable.

However,once the trial has commenced,the media has no right to pronounce upon the innocence or guilt of the persons involved according to its perception and knowledge of the law and criminal procedure. Determination of the guilt or innocence of a person under our constitutional scheme is the function of the courts,which should not be usurped by the media. Besides,incalculable harm can be done to a person’s reputation by prematurely judging him or her guilty. In this context,the observations of a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices P. Sathasivam and Swatanter Kumar in its recent judgment are instructive. “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”. The Bench cautioned that,“every effort should be made by the print and electronic media to ensure that the distinction between trial by media and informative media is always maintained”. Media will render great service if it observes the lakshman rekha charted by the Supreme Court.

US Supreme Court

Advertisement

Nomination of judges to the US Supreme Court by the President is fraught with serious consequences. Firstly,there is no retirement age for a Supreme Court Justice. Besides,the Court’s decisions have an impact on the life of the nation. Take the Supreme Court’s decision outlawing segregation of black students in educational institutions for instance. John Paul Stevens,the present court’s longest-serving liberal Justice,turns 90 this April. He has announced his intention to retire. The Court’s current composition is interesting. Its nine members include two Jews and six Roman Catholics. And with the impending resignation of Justice Stevens,the Court’s lone Protestant,will the vacancy be filled by nominating a Protestant judge? Unlikely. It is the Justices’ views that really matter. Today the three liberal judges in the Court are,Stephen Breyer,Ruth Ginsburg and Ms Sotomayor. John Roberts,the Chief Justice,is a conservative,as are Scalia,Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Kennedy,though generally conservative,is the court’s swing voter. Obama may well try to keep the court’s balance as it is by replacing one liberal with another. Choosing a candidate in the shadow of an election will be problematic for the President.

Tax free entertainment

We daily witness a lavish spectacle of events. Shashi Tharoor’s moving speech in Parliament,the unleashing of the full fury of official agencies against Lalit Modi and the mystery surrounding his future moves. Then the arrest of the self-styled godman Swami Nityananda from a hideout in Himachal Pradesh and frisking him back to Bangalore. A magistrate’s laughable direction for lodging a case against Shoaib Malik,Sania Mirza,Ayesha Siddiqui and others for their alleged statements hurtful to the Muslim community. And the Supreme Court’s conviction of four persons who were not before the Court and the subsequent magnanimous correction of its error. Fortunately we have not to pay any entertainment tax for viewing these events. Thanks,Finance Minister.