Cities

Chandigarh

Elections 2026

Not withdrawing, BJP spreading rumours: Sonipat mayoral face after Cong ward rejig

The Times of India 24 Apr 2026 2:25 am

HC directs Pb, Hry and centre to act on mental healthcare rules

The Times of India 23 Apr 2026 11:00 pm

The risks of media trials in digital era

In an age where a hashtag can convict before a courtroom convenes, the rule of law faces an unprecedented challenge. In any democracy, the media is the fourth pillar. It informs citizens, shapes public debate, and holds institutions accountable. Law, security, and public perception intersect in fragile and often explosive ways. But press freedom is not absolute. The Supreme Court made this clear in (1950): free speech must be balanced against other constitutional values, including the right to a fair trial. Today, that balance is under threat from a growing menace the media trial. It is evident that established or traditional media houses are fulfilling the role of the media: disseminating information without judgment. They employ trained experts as editors who filter information within the framework of media ethics. The real risk lies in the kind of information and journalism practised by portal-based journalists, who often lack editorial filters, social understanding, and legal ethics. A media trial happens when news channels, digital portals, or social media platforms declare someone guilty or innocent before a court has even heard evidence. In Kashmir, unverified posts and sensational headlines often create a parallel, unregulated courtroom; one without rules, without witnesses, and without appeal. The Supreme Court recognised this danger in (2012). It introduced postponement orders to prevent prejudicial reporting during ongoing trials. But on the ground, especially in Kashmir, such safeguards are often ignored. Media trials destroy the most basic principle of criminal justice: the presumption of innocence. No person should be branded a criminal in public before evidence is tested in a court of law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly called this presumption a human right, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. In (1966), the Court made it unequivocally clear: the presumption of innocence is a constitutional guarantee, binding on courts and, by logical extension, on media narratives as well. When a news anchor plays judge, or a tweet becomes a verdict, justice is undermined, whether in Delhi or in Kashmir. Reputations are destroyed without trial. Families are traumatised, and the rule of law takes a backseat to public hysteria. Judges are trained to be impartial. But they do not live in a vacuum. Excessive, sensational media coverage creates indirect pressure. When every headline screams terrorist or monster, can a trial remain purely evidence based? In Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010), the famous Jessica Lal murder case, the Supreme Court cautioned that media reporting must not prejudice the accused or interfere with the administration of justice. It emphasised restraint, especially in highprofile criminal cases. That warning is even more urgent in a state where every criminal case can acquire a political or communal colour. If television news started the media trial fire, social media poured fuel on it. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube spread information instantly but they also amplify misinformation, speculation, and rage. Algorithms reward sensational content over verified facts. A false claim can go viral in hours. Corrections, if they come at all, reach almost no one. In Kashmir, this dynamic is deadly. Unverified videos, old photos shared as new, and anonymous exclusive posts distort public understanding of ongoing legal proceedings. Virality replaces credibility. Justice becomes a hashtag. In such an environment, virality becomes a substitute for veracity. One often overlooked victim of media trials is the witness. Extensive publicity exposes witnesses to intimidation, social pressure, and fear. Some refuse to come forward. Others change their testimony to avoid harassment. The administration of justice depends entirely on witnesses who are willing to speak freely and truthfully. Media sensationalism undermines that willingness. In Kashmir, where witnesses already face security risks, a media trial can be the final reason to stay silent. Without credible witnesses, no trial can deliver justice. At its core, the media trial reflects an ethical collapse in parts of contemporary journalism. The commercialisation of news, the race for viewership and clicks, has pushed speed far ahead of accuracy. Verification is often an afterthought. Speculation is packaged as analysis. Investigative journalism remains essential to democracy, but when it transforms into adjudication without accountability, it loses legitimacy. A news organisation is not a court. It has no power to subpoena, no oath to administer, and no right to pronounce guilt. The solution is not to curb media freedom. The solution is responsible journalism that respects constitutional boundaries. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a fair trial. Courts have repeatedly held that neither right can eclipse the other. What is required is a principled balance, one that preserves the medias role as a watchdog while preventing it from acting as a judge. In a region marked by prolonged conflict, where even a single misreported incident can escalate tensions irreversibly, this balance becomes even more critical. The regions complex sociopolitical realities make it uniquely vulnerable to misinformation and narrative manipulation. A media trial is not just a legal problem. It can inflame community tensions, undermine counterinsurgency efforts, and destroy public trust in both media and courts. When a false headline spreads, it can take weeks or months to correct, and by then, the damage is done. Justice cannot be delivered through headlines. Justice demands due process, credible evidence, and impartial adjudication within the framework of law. As the Supreme Court observed in (1997), trial by media is antithetical to the rule of law. That observation assumes even greater urgency in Kashmir, where the stakes of justice are deeply intertwined with legitimacy, stability, and public confidence. A free press and a fair trial are not enemies. They are complementary pillars of a constitutional democracy. Preserving their equilibrium is essential not just for lawyers and journalists, but for every citizen. Justice must not only be done. It must be seen to be done in courts of law, not in the court of public opinion. Dr Ajaz Afzal Lone, currently working as an Assistant Professor in the University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University

Greater Kashmir 23 Apr 2026 10:51 pm

Irrigation project inaugurated, water relief for Chamkaur Sahib villages

The Times of India 23 Apr 2026 10:45 pm

State initiates Rs 1.4L crore recovery from Rajasthan: Dhaliwal

The Times of India 23 Apr 2026 10:45 pm

BJP leader urges Rs 1k-cr economic package for Asr

The Times of India 23 Apr 2026 10:40 pm

Jathedar Gargaj interacts with Sikh youth in Auckland

The Times of India 23 Apr 2026 10:40 pm

Army, civil admin conduct drill to bring Khalsa down

The Times of India 23 Apr 2026 10:35 pm

In vision document, SAD (Punar Surjit) proposes laws on conversion, sacrilege

The Times of India 23 Apr 2026 10:35 pm

2-day police remand for Amritpal in Ajnala attack case

The Times of India 23 Apr 2026 10:35 pm

PRTC adds 250 new buses to cover key routes, but locals say it is still inadequate

The Times of India 23 Apr 2026 10:25 pm

Congs Diwan back in Sonipat mayoral race, set to face BJPs Jain

The Times of India 23 Apr 2026 10:25 pm