Guwahati double murder case and media trial in Assam

Alankar Kaushik

Journalism is a social practice. While reaching out through the large, heterogeneous, faceless and anonymous body of people, the social responsibility on the shoulders of the communication and information channels is paramount. Considering this normative idea of ethical journalism, the recent coverage of the sensational double murder case of the accused Bandana Kalita is raising certain fundamental questions of truth, fairness, objectivity and most importantly the responsibility of a media house towards society.

It raises an important question regarding the dividing line between ‘invasion of privacy’ and ‘public interest’. In the interest of the readers, Bandana Kalita is accused of Guwahati double murder case that involves her husband and mother-in-law.

With the rise of the 24x7 regional satellite networks along with numerous recognized news portals in Assam, the competition to stay on the top of the ratings is unavoidable considering the pressure from the market. The media is not really as free and independent as it claims to be. Business imperatives of increasing revenue have taken their toll on editorial freedom and journalistic excellence via the demands and drive to increase circulation and viewership figures. The market pressure consequently converts the idea of public interest to the interest of the public.

As a faculty of media and journalism, it is very disturbing on our part to make the students understand the nuances of media ethics especially when such kind of horrifying incidents get continuous coverage from the media channels that they aspire to join after completion of studies.

Accused Bandana Kalita’s case is not the first instance in the country where the trial by media is leading to undue interference with the administration of justice. It may be the first of its kind in Assam, but there are numerous cases from Sanjay Dutt to Jessica Lal to Sheena Bora where a trial by media was witnessed.

The subject of ‘trail by media’ is discussed by civil society groups, activists, academicians, lawyers, judges on a daily basis yet there appears to be very little restraint in the media in so far as the administration of criminal justice is concerned.  Freedom of expression, being not an absolute right with reasonable restrictions as a caveat, makes the media house more vulnerable while publishing unrestricted content.

We are all aware that till the advent of satellite television in the 1990s, the only source of information and opinion were newspapers and Doordarshan in India. It was the satellite television revolution that brought a variety of TV channels across the country and dramatically transformed the quantum, quality and content of news and entertainment.

Right from Tehelka stings of 2001, to Operation Duryodhana in December 2005 till the Jessica Lal murder case, there is no denying of the fact that it is because of the media that the public could vocalize the demand for justice and the guilty did not go unpunished. But there is another side to the media revolution that has not been quite so commendable. The preoccupation of sensationalism designed by the media platforms appears to drown news-worthiness and a healthy discourse. The scores of channels with instant access to the web provide a distorted perspective and overloading of information to the public viewing the news. The obsession for breaking stories gets manifested in the form of media trial in pending criminal cases where the media goes for or against the accused.

In the horrifying case of Bandana Kalita, the victims’ families are seen being extensively interviewed on television and also airing some frivolous news item related to her personal choice inside the jail. This sort of coverage creates an atmosphere where it becomes difficult for a judge to act independently shorn of public sentiment. When the news anchors become oppressively judgemental, judges are susceptible to media opinion and the fate of the cases has been seen to oscillate owing to public opprobrium.

Television news also suffers because of its instantaneous nature and hardly carries in-depth analysis that another medium can offer to do so. Since it captures the moment and the horror of the event, it tends to make the viewer instantly judgemental.

Most codes of conduct for the media insist that journalists should exercise care and consideration while reporting or commenting on the private lives and concerns of individuals. However, it is admitted that in mitigating circumstances of public interest, the right to privacy may override and that inevitably raises a complex debate about the nature of privacy and public interest. The Press Council of India cautions against some unethical practices related to accuracy and objectivity.

In the wake of growing instances of media trials, the Supreme Court should delve into the issue that should not hamper the investigation process and secrecy of the inquiry. When a trial is already going on in the Court, the parallel process of trial by media is not an encouraging trend.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to a fair trial as it has been considered to be part of the right to life and liberty. The basic meaning of the “Right to Fair Trial” is that a trial should not be impacted by extrinsic pressures, which is recognized as a basic principle of justice in India. 

Articles 129 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 contain provisions that aim at safeguarding this right. In our country, the criminal justice system sticks to the ‘presumption of innocence’ that is, unless proven guilty, a person is presumed to be innocent by the competent court.

The role of the Media is to objectively broadcast the news which implies that the media should not adjudicate upon any case but only adhere to the publication of the factual part of the case.

In the rate race of the media, the rats seem to win the race by appeasing the audience through sensationalism and they are feeding the content that the public wish to view and read. This phenomenon has already damaged the credibility, craft and practice of journalism to a great extent.

It leads to a debate about serious versus non-serious journalism. What is non-serious journalism usually garnering more eyeballs and media business? Media is supposed to deliver public interest stories while on the contrary, they provide news that caters to the interest of the public.

To explore the issue of freedom of expression versus the freedom of the press, we should understand that freedom of expression is about the right of anyone to say whatever they want to, irrespective of it being true or false or decent or obscene because that is what freedom of expression is about. But the freedom of the press is completely different as it operates in a different framework where it has an obligation towards news being fair, objective, balanced, truthful and not causing harm to the people at large. So, journalism is about values, whether we accept them or not.

Media should slow down in its role as a moral guardian of society and start to connect to mass reality in the future. The creation of a monster as happened in the case of Bandana Kalita in Assam reinforces nothing but patriarchal stereotypes in the society through continuous and unwanted coverage in the name of sensationalism and satisfying the urge of the viewers and market for more sansani news.

The writer teaches journalism and mass communication at EFL University, Regional Campus, Shillong.