Trial by media

Justice Ramana's concerns are valid

Chief Justice of India N V Ramana’s criticism of the media, particularly TV and social media, of running “kangaroo courts” that conduct “ill-informed and agenda-driven debates” demands some serious attention. Justice Ramana’s comments, delivered at a lecture in Ranchi, did not name any entity but he has expressed misgivings frequently articulated in recent years. India has gained something of an unsavoury reputation for the blatantly partisan, crudely combative and low intellectual standard of discourse on sub-judice subjects that saturates the social media and the evening TV discussions. Social media, with its enormous reach among all levels of society and largely unregulated and unmoderated universe, remains the bigger offender in this respect. But TV has not lagged far behind with its blatant biases and commentary that has frequently spilled over into law and order problems. As the chief justice pointed out, pre-judging issues before the courts, some of them involving complex constitutional issues that demand thoughtful reflection, tends to vitiate the functioning of the judiciary. It may be argued that judges need not, indeed should not, take notice of media comment, and base their judgments on independent interpretations of the rule of law. This point is valid in theory but it becomes moot when inflamed and biased media discussions provoke attacks on judges, who, after all, live and work in the same society as the freelance commentators.

The key point, of course, is that neither media is restrained by any meaningful checks and balances. The print media is subject to legal accountability as Justice Ramana pointed out, though it, too, cannot be described as the soul of responsible reportage or commentary in its entirety. But most print media houses will restrain themselves when it comes to topics that are sub-judice, for the simple reason that they can invite contempt proceedings. But TV and social media exist in an environment where accountability is virtually non-existent. No less concerning is the symbiotic nature of the two media, which enables offensive TV clips to be aired ad nauseam on social media without check. In the latter, it is no secret that internal moderation is almost non-existent since platforms lack the wherewithal to police content effectively. It is also fair to say that when the Centre or state governments do choose to intervene and order the occasional shutdown or takedown, the impulse is driven by their own political agendas rather than the cause of impartiality or accuracy.

As a general principle, organised governmental oversight on the media—or censorship by any other name — is not a desirable development in a democracy. But several governments over the years have intended to do so and the more incendiary the discourse, the greater the encouragement for the government to make moves in that direction. That is why, as Justice Ramana pointed out, measured self-regulation by these online and broadcasting organisations is imperative. This is not just a need to ensure their survival but in the interests of the country too. A responsible, independent media is an indispensable tool of democracy that makes elected representatives and public servants accountable. Hampering the functioning of the judiciary by pre-judging issues is the last thing that will enhance this process.