Media Trial of Rhea Chakraborty: Strong law needed to protect dignity, privacy of accused

The CBI’s closure report in actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death case has cleared actress Rhea Chakraborty of all wrongdoing. The case highlights a recurring problem – media trials. Chakraborty was harassed and judged guilty by the media long before any investigation, or charges being framed, or a trial being conducted. The media frenzy surrounding her case was a glaring example of how accused individuals can be publicly vilified without trial. This incident is not unique. It reflects a deeper problem – the disregard for the rights of the accused and society’s failure to value the presumption of innocence.

Media as Judge, Jury, and Executioner

The media wants its verdicts delivered on the primetime debates on TV channels. The media often constructs a narrative where the accused is declared guilty before any evidence is examined. In Rhea Chakraborty’s case, news channels ran sensational headlines and conducted biased debates. Viewers were fed conspiracy theories, and Chakraborty’s guilt was treated as fact. This practice not only destroys reputations but also influences investigations and public opinion. Law enforcement agencies, eager to meet public expectations, sometimes compromise the investigation. The 2019 Hyderabad veterinary doctor rape case is a grim example. Public anger pushed the police to kill the accused in an encounter, bypassing due process.

Police and Spectacle of Public Humiliation

The police, tasked with protecting the rule of law, often become enablers of this public spectacle. It is common to see accused persons paraded before the media, squatting on the ground, humiliated in public view. In a recent case in Meerut, Muskaan Rastogi was paraded before the media after she, along with Sahil Shukla, was arrested for the murder of her husband. Photographers taunted them as the law enforcement stood by, turning an investigation into a public show. Such actions violate the dignity of the accused and undermine constitutional protections. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to dignity. The Supreme Court, in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), laid down guidelines to protect the dignity of arrested persons. Yet, these protections are often ignored.

Legal Gaps and Absence of Privacy Protections

India lacks a comprehensive legal framework to protect the privacy and dignity of the accused. While the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and court guidelines provide some protections, they are routinely violated. Section 303 of the CrPC guarantees the right of an accused to legal representation, while Article 20(3) protects against self-incrimination. But these rights remain meaningless when public opinion dictates the course of justice. In Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012), the Supreme Court acknowledged the harm caused by prejudicial media coverage. It laid down guidelines for postponing publication in sensitive cases. However, these guidelines have had little impact on curbing media excesses. Courts can issue gag orders in high-profile cases, but they rarely do so, fearing accusations of curbing press freedom. 

Need for Legal and Policing Reforms

India needs legislation that protects the privacy and dignity of the accused. Countries like the United Kingdom and the United States have strict rules that prevent police from revealing the identities of accused persons before formal charges. India should adopt similar practices. Policing reforms are essential. Law enforcement must be trained to uphold the rights of the accused. Internal guidelines should ban the public parading of accused persons, with penalties for violators. Accountability mechanisms must ensure that officers who violate these norms face consequences. Similarly, courts too should not hesitate to issue gag orders in cases where media coverage threatens to prejudice investigations or trials. Judicial oversight is essential to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fair trials.

Public Perception and Societal Responsibility

Reforms alone will not solve the problem. Society’s attitude toward accused persons also needs to change. The presumption of innocence is not just a legal principle – it is a foundation of a just society, the bedrock of a democracy. In India, however, public opinion often swings toward instant condemnation. Social media amplifies this tendency, spreading unverified information and fuelling biased opinions. Being accused of a crime should not strip a person of their fundamental rights. Unfortunately, stigma lingers even after acquittal, making reintegration into society difficult. Those who are wrongfully accused, especially in terrorism-related cases, face social rejection despite being cleared by courts. Society must remember that an accusation is not a conviction. To protect this principle, India needs social change, legal reforms, accountable policing, and a responsible media.

(The writer is a senior advocate designated by the Supreme Court of India and an occasional media commentator on public questions. The article reflects his personal views.)