By K Raveendran
A concerted attempt to make laws relating to content of court as a tyrannical tool to stonewall criticism of judicial decisions and the judges who deliver those decisions has not gone unnoticed. Most disturbingly, these efforts have coincided with a progressive degradation in the quality of court decisions as well as the goings on both within and outside the hallowed precincts of our judicial institutions.
A hardening of stand on the part of the Supreme Court relating to the enforcement of contempt of court rules had led to animated debate on the issue in the wake of activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan’s ‘conviction’ and his continued defiance. It was believed that the episode had a sobering effect on attitudes, but subsequent developments show the issue has come back to centre stage.
The death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput is unfortunately being used by various interests to wage their proxy wars and push their agendas, which include the designs for a gag on press freedom. A deliberate attempt is being made to show that it is the media that is obstructing the course of justice in this as well as similar cases.
Earlier this week, while hearing a public interest litigation filed by former Mumbai Police officers against the ‘media trial’ in in the Sushant Singh case, which the petitioners alleged was maligning the police force, the Bombay High Court has asked the Union government to clarify whether excessive media reportage amounted to interference in the administration of justice under the Contempt of Courts Act. The court also asked the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting why there should not be guidelines on media coverage of sensitive criminal cases.
Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the media trial was interfering with the administration of justice and therefore amounts to contempt of court. He submitted that when media pre-judges the guilt of the accused, the right to free and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and the presumption of innocence get undermined.
The counsel complained that the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting did not take any action against the ‘sustained campaign’ and ‘planned propaganda’ unleashed by the media for months following the death of Sushant Singh. He wants contempt of court provisions used against the media outlets as this could be seen as an attempt to influence the courts.
On the face of it, the complaint is quite genuine. But experience shows how presumption of innocence has been grossly abused in our system and how the principle has helped those who wield influence to dodge the law. Presumption of innocence is, in fact, a privilege of the influential and has not come to the aid of the genuinely innocent, thousands of whom have been interned for no fault of theirs.
The worst abuse of this principle occurs in the case of corruption cases, particularly those involving the influential. A remarkable judgement of the Supreme Court in this respect last year had gone largely unnoticed. Interpreting Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court observed that once the prosecution has established that the accused was possessing the bribe money, it is for the accused to explain how the bribe money had been received and the failure to offer satisfactory explanation can be taken as confirmation that the bribe had been accepted.
The stringent conditions for proving demand and acceptance as well as recovery of the bribe money have made prosecution in corruption cases so very difficult, especially when those who accept bribe do not oblige the law enforcement authorities by leaving enough evidence. There are no receipts issued for accepting bribery. The difficulty to prove bribe-taking, in fact, acts like an incentive to demand and take more bribes. The anti-corruption laws have to cover more ground if bribe taking has to be tackled in the modern age, in which there are unlimited options to demand and accept bribe and beat the system.
Now coming back to the question of media coverage influencing court decisions, such propositions cut at the very foundation of jurisprudence, which is that cases are decided on the basis of law and no other considerations, including public perception. If verdicts had ever been decided on the basis of public perception, many of the sensational cases would have ended differently. (IPA Service)