Impact Of Media Trials On The Criminal Justice System - A Legal Perspective

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Criminal Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:17:11.62187+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:11:13.622+00:00

IMPACT OF MEDIA TRIALS ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

SYSTEM: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

Dr Jasmine Gill, Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

ABSTRACT

Media trials have become a pervasive phenomenon in contemporary society, where extensive media coverage and public discourse often influence the perception of criminal cases before they reach judicial determination. This paper examines the legal implications of media trials on the criminal justice system, focusing on how premature and biased media reporting can undermine the principles of fair trial, presumption of innocence, and the independence of the judiciary. Exploring legal safeguards and constitutional provisions designed to balance these competing interests. The study also discusses the impact of media trials on the investigation process, jury impartiality, and the overall administration of justice. Keywords: Legal Implication, Media Trial, Criminal Justice System

Introduction The media trials on the criminal justice system in India have become a significant concern in recent decades, especially as media has evolved into a powerful tool influencing public opinion and judicial processes. In high-profile cases, the media often plays an active role in shaping the narrative surrounding the accused, sometimes even before the court has had a chance to deliver its verdict. This phenomenon of “trial by media” has led to a complex interplay between public opinion and the legal system, potentially jeopardizing the rights of the accused and the sanctity of fair trial procedures. With the rise of 24/7 news channels, social media platforms, and sensationalized reporting, the boundary between lawful judicial proceedings and media influence has become increasingly blurred.

The media’s role in the trial process can affect public perception, influence jury members (where applicable), and even pressure legal institutions to expedite or alter their decisions. 1 The concept of a media trial has become a significant challenge to the integrity of the criminal justice system. In democratic societies, the media plays a crucial role as the fourth pillar, ensuring transparency and accountability. However, excessive media intervention in legal proceedings has raised serious concerns about the violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. Sensationalized reporting often leads to pre-trial judgments in the court of public opinion, influencing judicial outcomes and law enforcement practices.

2 The legal implications of media trials extend to the erosion of due process, judicial impartiality, and the credibility of law enforcement agencies. High-profile cases covered extensively by the media tend to create undue pressure on the judiciary, sometimes leading to hasty decisions or mistrials. Furthermore, the violation of privacy rights and the publication of unverified information can result in defamation, character assassination, and wrongful convictions or acquittals. Courts in various jurisdictions, including India, have acknowledged the need to regulate media coverage of continuing trials to prevent interference with the legal process.

Despite existing contempt laws and judicial guidelines, the media’s role in shaping public 1 Aarav Sharma, “The Impact of Social Media on Criminal Trials and Justice Delivery in India,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Volume: 24, Issue: 4 (2020). 2 Priya Sharma, “Media Trials and the Public Perception of Justice: A Study of Indian Cases,” Indian Journal of Criminal Law, Volume: 29, Issue: 3 (2020).

perception of criminal cases remains a contentious issue. 3 Constitution of India, 1950 The Constitution of India, 1950, lays down the fundamental framework for balancing media freedom and the fair administration of justice. + Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: The media derives its right to report and comment on judicial proceedings from Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. 4 This right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which allows the State to impose restrictions on grounds such as: 5 Contempt of court, Defamation, Public order, Morality and decency, Sovereignty and integrity of India Article 21 of the Constitution: Media trials, by creating prejudicial public perception, can violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty and affect the fair trial rights of an accused.

Courts have ruled that excessive media coverage can compromise due process and influence witnesses, judges, and investigations. 6 Article 129 & Article 215 of the Constitution: Empower the judiciary to take action against individuals or institutions, including the media, for contempt of court. 7 If media reports interfere with judicial proceedings, courts can restrict publications or initiate contempt of court proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Article 141 – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Judgments Supreme Court judgments on media regulation and fair trial principles are binding on all courts in India under Article 141. 8 Article 145 – Supreme Court’s Rule-Making Power

3 Subashini K, “The Impact of Media Trials on Justice: A Critical Analysis,” Journal of Media and

Communication Studies, Volume: 6, Issue: 2 (2014).

4 Constitution of India, 1950, art. 19(1)(a),

5 Aarav Sharma, “The Impact of Social Media on Criminal Trials and Justice Delivery in India,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Volume: 24, Issue: 4 (2020). 6 Prof. Vivek Kapoor, “The Role of the Media in Shaping Criminal Justice in India,” National Law School of India Review, Volume: 35, Issue: 2 (2021).

7 Constitution of India, 1950, arts.129, 215,

8 Constitution of India, 1950, art. 141,

The Supreme Court can frame rules under Article 145 to regulate judicial proceedings, including restricting media interference in continuing cases. 9 Judicial Precedents on Media Trial and the Constitution In A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras10 Whether personal liberty under Article 21 includes fair trial rights. The Supreme Court emphasized that due process of law must be followed, ensuring that judicial proceedings remain independent of external influence, including media trials. In State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi11 Whether excessive media coverage influences court proceedings. The Supreme Court held that trial by media is against the fundamental principles of justice and can create bias in judicial proceedings. Courts must decide cases based on evidence, not public opinion shaped by media. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v.

State of Gujarat12 Role of media in exposing injustices versus its impact on judicial processes. The court recognized the positive role of media in bringing attention to issues like the Gujarat riots but warned against excessive media interference that could compromise judicial impartiality. In M. P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal13 Whether media discussion on a case before the trial is completed can affect the rights of the accused. The court criticized media reports for creating a biased public perception against the accused, violating the right to a fair trial under Article 21. In R. K. Anand v. Registrar,14 Whether sting operations by the media affect the administration of justice. The Supreme Court ruled that while investigative journalism is crucial, media must act responsibly and not conduct parallel trials that impact judicial proceedings.

The media cannot assume the role of the judiciary. In Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India15 Whether media can influence sensitive legal debates (euthanasia case). The court acknowledged media’s role in raising awareness but

9 Constitution of India, 1950, art. 145,

10 (1950) AIR 1950 SC 27.

11 (1997) 8 SCC 386.

12 (2004) 4 SCC 158

13 (2005) 2 SCC 686.

14 Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106.

15 (2011) 4 SCC 454.

held that legal decisions must be based on judicial reasoning and medical evidence, not mediadriven sentiments. In Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI16 Can courts restrict media reporting in sub judice (under trial) cases? The Supreme Court allowed courts to issue postponement orders on media reports in continuing cases to prevent prejudicial influence on judicial proceedings. This established the doctrine of postponement to balance press freedom under Article 19(1)(a) and fair trial rights under Article 21. In Dr. Rajesh Talwar v. CBI17 Media trial and its impact on an ongoing investigation (Aarushi Talwar case). The Supreme Court criticized the media for conducting a parallel investigation, influencing public perception, and violating due process of law. In Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami18 Defamation and media trials in sensitive criminal cases (Sunanda Pushkar case).

The court observed that sensationalized media coverage can interfere with an accused person’s fair trial rights and upheld that media must follow journalistic ethics. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 It classifies contempt into civil contempt, which involves wilful disobedience of court orders, and criminal contempt, which includes acts that scandalize the court, prejudice judicial proceedings, or obstruct justice. The Act prescribes punishment up to six months of imprisonment or a fine of ₹2,000, or both, but allows for exoneration if a genuine apology is tendered. Section 2 – Definitions19 Section 2(b) - Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of any judgment, order, or direction of the court. If media coverage creates prejudice against an accused before the verdict, it may amount to criminal contempt by interfering with a fair trial.

Section 3 of this Act Protects publication made without intent to interfere with judicial proceedings. Media cannot be held liable if they had no reasonable grounds to believe the case

16 (2012) 10 SCC 603.

17 (2013) 11 SCC 559.

18 (2021) SCC OnLine SC 1016.

19 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s.2.

was pending Ensures that honest reporting does not attract contempt charges, but reckless reporting affecting a fair trial may still be punished. 20 Section 4 of this Act Media can publish fair and accurate reports of judicial proceedings unless prohibited by the court. However, publication of sensitive or misleading content may be penalized. Media is allowed to report court proceedings, but sensationalized or misrepresented content that prejudices a case can attract contempt action. 21 Section 5 of this Act22 allows reasonable criticism of judgments, provided it does not undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Media can criticize judgments but cannot scandalize the judiciary by questioning its integrity unfairly. 23 Section 7 of this Act If a case is heard in camera (private hearing), media cannot publish details unless permitted by the court.

24 Media trials often report on sensitive cases, but publishing confidential proceedings can invite contempt charges. 25 Section 10 of these Act High Courts has inherent power to punish media houses, journalists, or individuals for contempt. Allows the judiciary to regulate trial by media when it prejudices fair trials. 26 Section 12 of this Act Punishment for contempt: Imprisonment up to six months, or Fine up to ₹2,000, or both. The court may excuse an offender if an apology is tendered. If media reporting compromises judicial integrity or violates a fair trial, courts can impose penalties. 27 Press Council Act, 1978 The Act empowers the PCI to function as a watchdog of the press, ensuring that media operates responsibly and ethically while upholding the rights of the public.

20 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s.3.

21 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s.4.

22 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s.5.

23 Sandeep Singh, “Media Coverage of Criminal Cases and the Impact on the Legal System,” National Law School of India Review, Volume: 34, Issue: 2 (2020).

24 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s.7.

25 Dr. Rina Das, “Freedom of Speech vs. Right to Fair Trial: The Role of Media in India,” Harvard International Law Journal, Volume: 41, Issue: 4 (2022)

26 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s.10.

27 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, s.12.

Section 13 – Powers and Functions of the Press Council28 The Council is responsible for ensuring that newspapers and news agencies operate independently and responsibly without external interference. It has the authority to inquire into complaints regarding professional misconduct, uphold journalistic standards, and address violations of press freedom. The Council can censure, warn, or admonish media organizations or journalists for breaching ethical norms. However, it lacks punitive or enforcement powers, relying instead on moral authority to guide the press. Section 14 – Power to Censure29 If, after an inquiry, the Council finds that a publication or journalist has acted in a manner prejudicial to the standards of press ethics, it may issue a formal censure, warning, or admonition. However, the PCI does not have punitive powers such as imposing fines or suspending publications.

Instead, it relies on moral authority to maintain journalistic integrity. This provision helps uphold press accountability while ensuring that media freedom is exercised responsibly and ethically. Section 15 – Protection of Journalists Acting in Good Faith30 This provision ensures that no journalist, editor, or media organization is subjected to unfair legal consequences or harassment for publishing news or opinions in the public interest and in accordance with journalistic ethics. The section serves as a safeguard against undue governmental or institutional pressure, reinforcing the freedom of the press. However, this protection does not apply if the journalist is found guilty of deliberate misconduct, defamation, or violation of ethical standards as determined by the Press Council of India (PCI).

This provision is crucial in maintaining a balanced approach between press freedom and journalistic accountability. Section 20 – Complaints Procedure31 The PCI examines complaints through inquiries and hearings, giving both parties an

28 The Press Council Act, 1978, s.13.

29 The Press Council Act, 1978, s.14.

30 The Press Council Act, 1978, s.15.

31 The Press Council Act, 1978, s.20.

opportunity to present their case. If the Council finds merit in the complaint, it may issue a warning, admonition, or censure to the concerned party. However, the PCI does not have punitive powers and relies on its moral authority to enforce accountability. This provision ensures a transparent and fair mechanism to address grievances while upholding press freedom and ethical journalism. 32 Section 28 – Power to Make Rules33 Section 28 of the Press Council Act, 1978, grants the Press Council of India (PCI) the authority to frame rules and regulations for carrying out the provisions of the Act effectively. These rules may cover various aspects, including the procedure for inquiries, the conduct of meetings, financial matters, and administrative functions of the Council.

The power to make rules ensures that the PCI can function independently and efficiently while adapting to emerging challenges in the field of journalism. However, these rules must be consistent with the provisions of the Act and require government approval where necessary. This section strengthens the self-regulatory framework of the press while ensuring that journalistic standards and press freedom are upheld. Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 The Act aims to prevent the transmission of objectionable content, maintain broadcasting standards, and promote responsible media practices. Section 3 – Registration of Cable Operators34 The registration process ensures that cable operators comply with the norms set out in the Act, including content regulation.

Cable operators are accountable for the content they broadcast, including news reports that could prejudice criminal trials. Media coverage that involves prejudicial statements or speculative reporting in criminal cases can be controlled if operators are held accountable. 32 Ankit Kumar, “The Impact of Media Trials on the Judiciary: Case Study of High-Profile Criminal Cases in India,” Journal of Law and Technology, Volume: 11, Issue: 2 (2021).

33 The Press Council Act, 1978, s.28.

34 Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, s.3.

Section 4 – Responsibilities of Cable Television Networks35 This section mandates that cable television networks must adhere to the program code. The program code ensures that the content aired does not affect public order, decency, or morality. News channels must refrain from broadcasting sensationalized, unverified, or prejudicial content that could negatively influence public perception of continuing criminal trials. Ensures that news coverage is balanced, promoting a fair trial and preventing trial by media. 36 Section 5 – Restriction on Broadcasting37 This section gives the government power to impose restrictions on the transmission or retransmission of certain content that may be deemed harmful, including content that may affect national security or public order.

Section 6 – Content Code38 The Content Code under the Act ensures that television programs and advertisements comply with certain guidelines that safeguard the interests of viewers and maintain decency and public order. News programs involving coverage of criminal trials must comply with the content code and avoid speculative commentary about the guilt or innocence of the accused, especially in high-profile cases. Section 7 – Regulation of Television Channels and Licenses The Act empowers the government to issue licenses to broadcasters and impose conditions for operating television channels, including news channels. News channels operating under a license must follow strict guidelines on ethics and fairness when broadcasting criminal cases, ensuring that the content does not violate the principles of justice and the right to a fair trial.

Media channels could face penalties or even license revocation for irresponsible coverage that undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. 39

35 Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, s.4

36 Tara Mishra, “Judicial Response to Media Trials in India: A Critical Overview,” Journal of Indian Law Institute,Volume: 63, Issue: 4 (2022).

37 Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, s.5.

38 Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, s.6.

39 Amrita Chauhan, “Media, Public Opinion, and the Indian Legal System,” Journal of Media and Communication Studies, Volume: 15, Issue: 1 (2021).

Section 19 – Powers of the Government to Block Content40 Provides the government with the authority to block or prohibit the broadcast of any content that is deemed to be prejudicial to national security or public order. This provision is critical in curbing media trials and preventing harmful narratives from spreading before the court has made its decision. 41 Information Technology Act, 2000 The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, is India's primary law governing cybercrime, electronic commerce, and digital transactions. It was enacted to provide legal recognition to electronic records, facilitate secure digital communications, and regulate cyber-related offenses. The Act has been amended over time, notably in 2008, to address emerging cyber threats and improve enforcement mechanisms.

Section 66A (Struck Down) – Punishment for Offensive Messages42 Earlier criminalized sending offensive, false, or misleading information via electronic means. Struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India43 its repeal, this section was misused to suppress online speech. However, its absence has led to unregulated digital media trials, as online platforms can spread unverified accusations against accused persons. Section 67 – Publishing Obscene or Defamatory Content Online44 Any person who publishes or transmits content that is lascivious, sexually explicit, or intended to corrupt minds can face sentence of up to three years and a fine for the first offense, with harsher penalties for repeat offenses. This provision aims to protect public morality and decency in digital spaces and applies to social media, websites, emails, and other online platforms.

It complements laws related to

40 Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, s.19.

41 Dr. Aditi Mehta, “Media Trials and the Criminal Justice System: An Analysis of the Legal Implications in India,” Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Volume: 12, Issue: 1 (2023).

42 The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, s.66A.

43 (2015) 5 SCC 1.

44 The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, s.67.

cybercrime, defamation, and obscenity, ensuring responsible use of the internet while safeguarding freedom of expression within legal limits. Section 69 – Government’s Power to Block Content45 This section grants the central government the authority to block online content in the interest of national security, public order, sovereignty, and integrity of India. Non-compliance with blocking orders can result in punishment of up to seven years of imprisonment and a fine. This section is often used to curb hate speech, misinformation, terrorism-related content, and cyber threats. Section 79 – Intermediary Liability and Safe Harbour Protection46 This means that intermediaries are not liable for user-generated content if they act only as a platform for information exchange and do not actively modify or promote unlawful content.

Intermediaries must follow government-mandated rules, including content moderation policies and grievance redressal mechanisms. If an intermediary actively promotes or curates unlawful content, it may lose safe harbour protection. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 The rules aim to ensure accountability of digital platforms, curb misuse, and promote responsible online behaviour while balancing freedom of expression with user protection. Due Diligence by Intermediaries (Rule 3) Platforms must clearly inform users about prohibited content, including material that is defamatory, obscene, invasive of privacy, harmful to minors, or threatens public order. Upon receiving a court order or government directive, intermediaries must remove illegal content within 36 hours.

They must appoint a Grievance Officer to handle user complaints and resolve them within 15 days. Significant social media intermediaries (SSMIs) providing messaging

45 The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, s.69.

46 The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, s.79.

services must enable traceability of the first originator of unlawful messages upon government request. Identification of First Originator of Information (Rule 4(2)) This rule applies to messaging platforms with over 50 lakh users in India. The rule mandates that platforms should not store or share message content; they only need to provide the first sender's identity. Messaging platforms must comply with government or court orders requiring such information. Critics argue that this provision compromises end-to-end encryption, leading to potential privacy violations and mass surveillance risks. Code of Ethics for Digital News Media and OTT Platforms (Rule 9) This rule mandates that digital media platforms comply with journalistic norms, maintain content classification standards, and establish a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism.

47 Government Power to Block Content (Rule 16) This rule strengthens the government's ability to regulate online content that may threaten national security, public order, or sovereignty. The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) can direct intermediaries or digital media platforms to block content without prior notice in urgent situations. Such directions can be issued if the content poses a threat to national security, public order, or incites violence. Blocking orders must be approved by a governmentauthorized officer, and a review committee must confirm the decision within 48 hours. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is a legislative act enacted to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, aiming to modernize and adapt India's criminal laws to contemporary needs.

Section 72 – Disclosure of Identity of Victims of Certain Offenses48 Media outlets involved in criminal cases must be cautious when reporting on victims and must 47 Prateek Tiwari, “Trial by Media: How It Affects Criminal Justice in India,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Volume: 50, Issue: 3 (2022).

48 The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s.72.

adhere to the law regarding the identity of victims. Disclosing the identity of victims or engaging in media trials can further harm their dignity and potentially compromise the investigation and judicial process. Section 356 – Defamation49 Defamation occurs when someone publishes false information about a person with the intention of harming their reputation. This includes written, spoken, or broadcasted content. The section specifically addresses the penal consequences for defamation, and media entities can be held accountable if their reporting on a criminal case damages the reputation of an individual (especially an accused person) without proof. In media trials, sensationalized coverage or unsubstantiated claims can harm an individual's reputation, especially before a verdict is delivered.

Accused persons in criminal cases may suffer damage to their reputation if media outlets prejudge them as guilty, violating the provisions under Section 499. Section 351 – Criminal Intimidation50 Criminal intimidation involves threatening someone with injury to their reputation, property, or life to cause fear. If media outlets use threatening language or images in reporting criminal cases, it could be interpreted as criminal intimidation under this section. Prejudiced or inflammatory media content that intimidates the accused or influences the general public to form opinions about a case could amount to criminal intimidation. If a media outlet intentionally broadcasts content that threatens the fairness of a trial, it could face legal consequences under this section.

Section 352– Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of the Peace51 This section punishes intentional insults aimed at provoking breach of peace or disturbance of public order. When media outlets air content that insults individuals, especially those involved in criminal cases, with the intent to provoke public outrage, it could lead to public unrest. Irresponsible media reporting that insults individuals or authorities involved in a criminal case can stir public sentiment and undermine the orderliness of judicial proceedings. For instance,

49 The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s.356.

50 The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s.351.

51 The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s.352.

defamatory or offensive reporting may escalate public opinions, leading to prejudgment of the accused before the trial concludes. Challenges • Violation of the Presumption of Innocence – Media often portrays accused individuals as guilty before the court has delivered a verdict. 52 • Influence on Judiciary – While judges are expected to be impartial, extensive media coverage can create pressure and impact judicial decision-making. • Trial by Public Opinion – Public opinion, shaped by sensationalized media reports, can interfere with legal proceedings and due process. • Impact on Witnesses – Intense media scrutiny can intimidate witnesses, leading to retractions or reluctance to testify. 53 • Compromising Jury Trials – In countries with jury systems, media narratives can bias jurors, making it difficult to ensure fair trials.

• Political and Corporate Interests – Media houses, influenced by political or business interests, may shape narratives to suit vested agendas rather than reporting facts objectively. 54 • Sensationalism Over Facts – The media often prioritizes sensationalism for higher viewership, side-lining factual and legal nuances of cases. • Privacy Violations – Media trials frequently breach the privacy of the accused, victims, and their families, leading to social stigma. 55 • Parallel Investigations – Independent media investigations may contradict official 52 Shefali Verma, “Balancing Media Freedom and Judicial Fairness in India,” National Law School of India Review, Volume: 37, Issue: 1 (2023). 53 Manoj Kumar, “The Media’s Role in Criminal Cases and the Fair Trial Doctrine,” Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Volume: 13, Issue: 3 (2023).

54 Manoj Kumar, “The Media’s Role in Criminal Cases and the Fair Trial Doctrine,” Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Volume: 13, Issue: 3 (2023). 55 Harpreet Kaur, “Influence of Media on Criminal Law: Indian Perspective,” Indian Journal of Public Law and Governance, Volume: 29, Issue: 2 (2022).

police inquiries, creating confusion and eroding public trust in law enforcement. • Misinformation and Fake News – Unverified and speculative reporting can spread misinformation, misleading the public and causing unnecessary panic. • Delayed Justice – Media pressure can rush investigations or trials, potentially leading to weak cases, wrongful convictions, or acquittals due to lack of evidence. 56 • Interference in Police Functioning – Constant media scrutiny can pressure law enforcement agencies, diverting focus from proper legal procedures. • Glorification of Crime – Excessive media coverage can create sympathy for criminals or encourage copycat crimes. • Psychological Impact on Accused and Victims – Media trials can have severe emotional and mental health consequences for both accused individuals and victims, affecting rehabilitation and reintegration.

Conclusion In India, media trials intersect with various legal provisions aimed at upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system while balancing under Article 19(2), including contempt of court, defamation, and public order. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, empowers courts to take action against publications that interfere with judicial proceedings or scandalize the judiciary. The Press Council of India (PCI), under the Press Council Act, 1978, issues guidelines to ensure ethical reporting, though it lacks strong enforcement mechanisms. While the media plays a vital role in promoting transparency and exposing injustices, excessive interference in legal proceedings can distort public perception, compromise judicial neutrality, and jeopardize the rights of the accused.

Courts have repeatedly highlighted the dangers of trial by media, urging for stricter regulations and responsible journalism. Moving forward, there is a need for stronger legislative safeguards, enhanced judicial intervention, and greater self-regulation by media organizations to ensure that justice is served without undue external influence. A 56 Shubham Sharma, “Contempt of Court and Media Trials: The Need for Judicial Oversight,” Journal of Indian Law Institute, Volume: 62, Issue: 4 (2020).

harmonious coexistence between free press and fair trial principles is essential to uphold the credibility of the Indian criminal justice system.