With close to a thousand TV channels broadcasting 24X7, 100,000 newspapers, innumerable radio stations, and billions of messages on social media ~ all competing for eyeballs ~ the attention span of the average viewer has been reduced to some few seconds. In this scenario, there is no chance of a subtle message going through; you have to be really loud and outrageous to be heard, which has resulted in the quality of public discourse touching its nadir.

The strident tone of shouting matches ~ masquerading as discussions on TV channels ~ with countless instances of verbal exchanges degenerating into walk-outs, and even physical fights, reinforces this conclusion. Social media is even worse; with no norms to follow, users have no hesitation in posting defamatory content, and at times, even the choicest abuses.

Advertisement

Newspapers (not The Statesman), for long the advocates of balanced language, are going overboard with colourful headlines like Mr ABC slams/excoriates the statement of Mr DEF, where denies/refutes could have sufficed. A crime involving some famous person is manna for the media, which discusses it in sordid detail, very often with pronounced biases, and pronounces judgement even before the investigation is complete. The worst offenders, TV channels, feed on controversies; once a juicy scandal breaks out, anchors float the most outrageous theories, invite the most uncivil panellists, and forget everything about common decency.

Such ‘media trials’ have come to the notice of Courts; according to the Andhra Pradesh High Court: “A ‘trial by media’ refers to the impact of television, newspapers, and social media on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a Court of law… Media trials can prejudice the public, affect judicial functioning, and lead to wrongful portrayals of individuals, instigating hatred and violence against them.” The most famous victim of a media trial was actress Rhea Chakraborty, a one-time girlfriend of actor Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR), who died by suicide on 14 June 2020, at the young age of thirty-four. The cause of death was suicide, as determined by the coroner, with the initial post-mortem report indicating SSR died of asphyxia due to hanging.

The final post-mort em report, received on 25 June 2020, confirmed the cause of the death as asphyxia due to hanging, adding that it was a “clear case of suicide.” The report further said that no there was no evidence of foul play. Meanwhile, disheartened by his young son’s death, SSR’s father, KK Singh, filed an FIR accusing Rhea Chakraborty and six others, of abetment of suicide, wron gful restraint, wrongful confinement, theft, criminal breach of trust, cheating etc. This was the signal for media to go on overdrive; Chak – raborty was portrayed as an avaricious and heartless gold digger, who had conspired to kill SSR.

Day in day out the same script was repeated. Public opinion forced enforcement agencies to go after Miss Cha kra borty, who was jailed for some days. TV channels purposely vilified her, labelling her as a ‘witch and sorceress,’ vitiating the min ds of viewers aga inst her; TV channels went so far as to taunt SSR for dying by suicide, and for good measure, labelled him a drug addict. Notably, none of the TV Channels or anchors apologised, or expressed any kind of regret, after the CBI’s closure report, in March 2025. Some public-minded individuals moved the Bombay High Court against the biased and damaging coverage of the SSR suicide case by TV channels.

The Court held: “…in an at tempt to out-smart each other, these two TV channels started a vicious campaign of masquerading as the crusaders of truth and justice and the saviours of the situation … throwing the commands of the CrPC and all sense of propriety to the winds.…These TV channels took upon themselves the role of the investigator, the prosecutor as well as the Judge.” However, despite such condemnation, a similar media trial took place when Aryan Khan son of actor Shahrukh Khan was arrested, for possession of ban – ned drugs, in November 2021. Again, TV channels went overboard, painting Aryan and Shahrukh as anti-nationals, drug addicts, and much worse.

Even after Aryan Khan was absolved of all charges in May 2022, and in an interesting turn of events, the CBI charged the NCB zonal director, Sameer Wankhede, who had arrested Khan, for bribery, not an iota of remorse was expressed by TV channels. Justice Yashwant Verma is the most recent victim of media inquisition. After some cash was allegedly burnt in a fire at his residence, all types of media went hammer and tongs after him. Some gentlemen of the media even went to the extent of pointing out cases where the judge could have received illegal gratification. In their bid for eyeballs, few, if any, referred to Justice Verma’s explanation, fewer abided by the maxim that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Rather, based on the assumed guilt of Justice Verma, some high political functionaries built up a case for revival of the defunct National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act. Probably, this is the price one pays for the voluminous amount of information, that can be retrieved on a click of a mouse ~ which is pure misinformation, often dished out in the guise of information, by websites and news channels. Western media does not lag behind in conducting their own trials; the SSR and Aryan Khan cases have their parallels in Casey Anthony, Amanda Knox, Harvey Weinstein, and OJ Simpson cases, where extensive and mostly biased media coverage had the potential of affecting the decision of the jury.

An even more alarming trend seems to have emerged recently; judges of constitutional courts are being tried by the media! To elaborate: social media posts, and occasionally even newspapers and TV channels question decisions of constitutional courts in highly inappropriate language, and attribute the worst kind of motives to judges. One saw this happen when the Supreme Court stopped ‘bulldozer justice,’ i.e., demolition of houses of accused persons. Now, when the Supreme Court is deciding on the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, two BJP MPs have come out with guns blazing against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Supreme Court (SC).

They went so far as to allege that the CJI was responsible for all civil wars in the country, stating that if the SC were to legislate, Parliament and all State Assemblies should be shut down. These gentlemen went on to make derogatory references to various cases, where Supreme Court had decided against the Government; the Tamil N�du Governor’s case, the judgement nullifying S.377 of the IPC, and the decision to strike down S.66A of the Information Technology Act, to mention a few. The BJP dissociated itself from these intemperate utterances; the BJP President tweeted: “The BJP has nothing to do with the statements made by BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma on the judiciary and the Chief Justice of the country. These are their personal statements, but the BJP neither agrees with such statements nor does it ever support such statements.

The BJP completely rejects these statements…” However, the two leaders were unfazed; neither did they take down their statements, nor did the leadership initiate any action against them. Judges are expected to de – cide cases impartially, based on the law and evidence presented in Court. However, the pressure of public opinion, fuelled by media coverage, can totally vitiate this process, because judges would feel compelled to consider the potential public reaction to their rulings, which could undermine their independence, as also the integrity of the judicial process. Negative portrayal of judges and judiciary in the media, can fuel distrust and scepticism, debasing the relationship between the judiciary and the public ~ influencing how future cases are perceived and decided.

Thus far, the Supreme Court has been extremely lenient with persons charged with contempt, but given the calculated and brazen challenges to its majesty, one hopes that the Supreme Court comes down heavily on the contemnors. Of course, to strengthen the hands of the Supreme Court, all political parties have to unreservedly condemn inappropriate statements. Finally, what Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President John F Kennedy, American author, diplomat, and attorney, said is equally relevant for us: “The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing.”

(The writer is a retired Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax)