 Please subscribe to this YouTube channel mentor talk can do press bell button for notifications. A coin always has two sides, head or tail. Good or bad. For what happens if two sides are not good or bad but actually bad or ugly? What happens if there is no good at all in the coin? Well, today I am discussing the ongoing trend that is commonly referred to as the media trial. The press and media have been recognized since many decades as one of the four pillars of the nation's governance or let us say democracy. The freedom of press is of utmost significance undoubtedly and is a fundamental right under the realm of freedom of speech and expression that is cherished in article 191a of the Indian Constitution. In the last three decades, I would say we all have witnessed massive growth or should I say revolution in the distribution and broadcasting of entertainment and information through satellite, cable and internet-based networks, channels and social media platforms. They have literally taken over the day-to-day lives of all of us. They dominantly influence our minds, thought process, opinions and eventually our belief. There have been so many instances, cases and matters concerning people's lives, liberty, honor, prestige and more in the past which were attempted to or perhaps even they got prejudiced because of media trial. I am talking about the print media and the electronic media. Some people were actually able to get orders against the media trial whereas many others continued to suffer the stigma. It was like double jeopardy, trial by the court and parallel trial by the media. But recently we have seen in new face of media, media investigation going parallel to the investigation by the government agencies. I will always compliment investigative journalism so long it is unbiased and does not hold any vested agenda. The objective of electronic media is to inform the people not to misinform the public at large. Let us get down to the specifics now. The courts of law, right from the bottom to the top, have both complimented as well as criticized the media, the press. Wherever the need arose, they even gagged them. Yes, a daily-based district court had restrained media houses from publishing unsubstantiated, uncoraborated information against a former civil aviation minister regarding his alleged involvement in a money laundering case pending investigation. The court in that matter had observed that the plaintiff was summoned to the court as a witness and therefore publishing of any information based on unsubstantiated and uncoraborated facts about the plaintiff cannot be said to be justified. That was said by a district court of Delhi. Likewise, recently the Madras High Court appealed to the members of print, visual and social media to not to misinterpret the proceedings or observations of the court with regards to a hearing related to the horrific custodial death of a father and son in that state. The court had further urged in that matter that media trial should not be conducted as it may affect both the prosecution as well as the accused. Talking about the highest court, the Indian Supreme Court, they have frequently and consistently underlined the role of media in a democracy and to uphold the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom of press. They have complimented them. But at the same time, the Supreme Court has also stressed, underlined the need for the media and the journalists as a whole to embark on responsible coverage, not irresponsible or reckless coverage. In one of the cases, the Supreme Court observed that it was imperative that the electronic and news media should play a positive role in presenting to the public what actually transpired during the course of hearing, which should not be publicized in a manner so as to garner publicity for its own paper or news channel, talking about TRPs. And in another case, the Supreme Court observed that there was a danger of a serious risk of prejudice. If the media published statements which would outrightly hold the suspect or accused guilty even before such an order has been passed by a court, moreover, the Supreme Court also asserted that it was required from persons at the helm of affairs to ensure that a trial by media would not hamper fair investigations. Fair investigations should not be hampered by the investigating agency and would not prejudice the right of defense of an accused in any manner whatsoever. They need to be sensitive about it. Way back in 1988, the High Court of Kerala in M. V. J. Rajan's case made an excellent ruling where they equated the press with the public at large. The court said that the existence of a free press is an inevitable necessity in maintaining parliamentary democracy. The press occupies, the court said, an unenviable position because the media are the eyes and ears of the general public. They act on behalf of the general public. Their right to know and their right to publish is neither more nor less than that of the general public for whom they are trustees. The court basically settled the Kerala court that the media does not enjoy any power larger than that of the general public whom they represent and the media is subject to all the restrictions which every member of the general public is subject to. In fact, the journalists are encumbered with additional accountability, the court said, for what they write because it is likely to influence the public to a greater degree in comparison to an ordinary citizen writing or saying something. So, not only the courts of law, even the court of ethics and broadcasting standards issued by the news broadcasting association, which I read very recently, emphasizes upon the principles of self-regulation, impartiality, objectivity, neutrality and privacy. Yes. And recently, very recently, last week, the Bombay High Court urged the media to exercise restraint while reporting pertaining to the investigation of the unnatural death of Sushant Singh Rajput because that would hamper or prejudice the ongoing investigation. So, some restraint should be exercised by the media. Well, if you watch news, the panel debates these days, you will find people from all walks of life present on the panel, you know, beat commentators, lawyers, former judges, activists, politicians, film stars, former bureaucrats, police officers and so on. There's a big list. And each one is aggressively contending, trying to oppose each other, expressing their views and opinions on any matter. And the panel discussion, you know, gives a look of a courtroom, a disorganized courtroom, I would say, the one which has no rules or regulations. And they are discussing every concerned person who is under investigation, declaring that person as a guilty or convict, a time and again. So, you know, the freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, no doubt. But it comes with a blade of restrictions with every right, we must accept there is a corresponding duty. You know, while running a media campaign, you know, one should be mindful that, you know, you have duty towards the right to reputation of the concerned person, the right to privacy, decency and morality, and the law pertaining to contempt of court. Yes.