Condemned Without Being Heard!!!

Anjani Kumar Singh

I am a lawyer. I am based in Mumbai. Therefore I can claim to be better informed than the mostly Delhi-centric media vis-à-vis Bollywood star Shiny Ahuja’s case, wherein he has been charged with raping his maid. Since this ‘Breaking News’ flashed early this month on television screens, Ahuja is condemned everyday, in some way or the other. Can someone – however high or low – be condemned like this, without being heard?

The actor is under arrest and the identity of the maid is being kept secret. That’s fine. Now, why not let law take its own course?

However, ironically, it appears that this case has already been decided without going into the trial, much less a fair trial, due to media intrusion in the justice delivery system.

I feel that day-to-day reporting of the case may affect the outcome of this case as the media is prejudicing the issue which may ultimately prejudice the mind of the judge conducting the trial.

We have seen media’s over-reaction in the past also. How long will it be allowed? How long will the lawmakers be mute spectators to this? Is media, by its such actions, indeed helping the justice delivery system or distorting the justice delivery system?

Well, it appears to be an arguable issue and can not be concluded in one go on the basis of an individual opinion.

In the US and several other European countries, media refrains from publicly naming an accused or victim without conviction/acquittal. Broadly speaking, the Indian media, on the contrary, hypes the issue.

A section of the media even discusses such issues and names in detail on the pretext of spreading awareness, and in turn makes the news juicy, tasty. Some totally uncontrolled and imaginary angles, twists, outcomes, suggestions, circumstances and dimensions are also discussed during such debates, which may be illegal or may invite penal action under the law.

But for this entire hegemony, the media alone can not be solely held responsible. The act is contributory. We do notice that one party to such litigations feels satiated only when there is wide publicity of the ‘incident’ and then continued exposure of every turn of events.

Such ways and methods to instantly defame the alleged, irrespective of the final order and result of the case, are dangerous. The present razzmatazz thus makes me to suggest a law for regulating the media in such cases.

To start with, the publicity office of the police must begin briefing the media strictly on the basis of the First Information Report (FIR). No victim or her relative and/or the accused or his relative should be entertained by the media so as to avoid distortion or improvisation of a case.

Except for the restricted police briefing, media should not be further allowed to discuss the merits of the case by any means under any circumstances. When the victim or the accused can remain calm, why not media be taught some patience! After all, it will have its chance to send the vultures out when an order is passed, finally.

I, on my part, remain committed to protect personal dignity, respect and identity of a victim, on either side. Let justice prevail.