Article and update by Advocate Prem Kumar (Former Patiala House Court)

I have been a practicing advocate for many years now and have sat on judgment for over a lot of cases in my tenure as Patiala Court Judge. The words of our former Attorney General of India and eminent jurist Soli J.Soabjee, in a recent ‘Times of India’ article (on the 6^th of August’07), rings loud and clear in my minds ‘just because a popular star, a very important personality…..with high level people, speaking in his favour, no signal should go to the people, that there is a celebrity justice system”, he stated. He went on to say that media hype could be ‘counterproductive’ and if public opinion is misinformed, it should be ‘ignored’.

Public interfering with the judicial process either by demanding instant justice via media pressure or vociferously criticizing pronouncements, intimidating judges – especially in high profile cases. This is a dangerous trend, and could lead to miscarriage of justice.

The ‘responsible media’ have tried to keep a balanced view. But some have succumbed to the alter of ‘celebrity sensationalisation’.

The ‘Sanjay Dutt’ verdict is a timely reminder to all those who believe that there is one justice system for the celebrities and one for everyone else. There is no two tier justice system and the very idea that you have justice and then you have celebrity justice is really offensive and goes against the basic tenet of rule of law. ‘Be you ever so high, the law is above you’. This is, however, one facet of the coin. The other aspect of the matter which has hardly received due and adequate attention in the media is : should a person be denied his rights as an accused because he happens to be a celebrity. A person cannot be denied justice and a different benchmark fixed for him to his disadvantage only because he happens to be a celebrity in his own right. Courts have to remain unaffected and impartial and treat offenders equal before the law to a pre trial publicity which at times reflects its hostility and prejudice towards such an accused.

The larger issue that bothers the Society today is whether the media is crossing limits in commenting on celebrities and promoting trial by media. No doubt, media is the fourth limb of a democratic system and freedom of the media is indeed an integral part of the freedom of expression and essential requisite of a democratic setup, but the media has to operate within the framework of the relevant statutes and constitutional provision to act in public and national interest.

The media has an obligation to respect the rights of individuals and to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the Court proceedings before publishing the same. Media has, no doubt, right to gather and convey information to the public and to comment on the administration of justice including cases before, during and after trial but without violating the presumption of innocence of the accused whoever he may be and whatever his standing in public and social life.

There is need today for stricter laws, particularly in relation to criminal proceedings and in the interest of the administration of justice for the prevention of serious prejudice to an accused and also for the prevention of serious harm to or improper pressure being placed on a witness or a victim.

Obviously, sensationalisation and trivialization of the news and information has to be avoided. Media has certainly to be a watchdog of the society in the real sense. After all a barrage of negative publicity dents the presumption of innocence of accused in public mind and celebrity becomes vulnerable to a media generated presumption of guilt which also cannot be said to be in public interest. The rights of an individual accused whoever he may be need protection to strengthen the criminal justice system and the rule of law.

Let’s take the Uphaar Case for example. The reverse of the ‘Sanjay Dutt’ case is true here. Mr.Ansal is a well known and well respected personality of North India. But that is no reason why he should be ‘victimised’ inspite of not being the prime accused, not being the director of the cinema owning company and not being in any shape or form within the definition of ‘gross negligence’, in accordance with IPC. Even the cinema owning company – having demonstrated through various and numerous exhibits and evidences that all seating arrangements were in accordance to all bye-laws, and fire safety measures were intact – as confirmed by all the licensing authorities at the time.

It was a tragic accident! Yet one keeps hearing the ‘Ansal’ name being associated with the case again and again. Why does this illogical craving for hounding the celebrities? I suppose it makes for spicy gossip! But in the process, the legal system may be compromised – undue pressure is put on the system. Innocent (till proven otherwise) people are victimized and lashed by the people who are blinded by misplaced alliances. But the law cannot, must not succumb! Wrong founded ‘emotions’ have no part in justice.

Let’s face facts. There is no case against the ‘Ansals’ in the Uphaar Case. Let the law take its right full course – unbiased, logical and pure. We all await the right verdict. The only true verdict.