Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi cautioned that unrestrained media trials can ruin judicial careers, citing a judge allegedly linked to money. He said instant public judgment often precedes court evidence, leaving reputational damage permanent and public trust shattered.
Senior Advocate and former Attorney General for India, Mukul Rohatgi, expressed concerns on about how media trials can irreparably harm judicial careers, referencing the case of Justice Yashwant Varma.
Rohatgi stated that the reputational damage inflicted by persistent media coverage cannot be undone, even if a court ultimately acquits the individual involved.
Without naming the judge, He remarked,
“There is the case of that judge in whose house they say the money was found. The whole media has painted him black…If he’s ultimately acquitted, nobody’s going to believe that he was an honest judge…His career is over, whatever may happen to the case,”
Rohatgi represented Justice Varma in his petition contesting the Lok Sabha Speaker’s formation of a three-member committee against him under the Judges (Inquiry) Act for potential impeachment.
The Supreme Court dismissed this plea on Friday.
During a panel discussion on January 16, which celebrated the launch of Beyond Headlines: Volume I — Medium and Its Mutations by Aamir Khan Wali, Rohatgi pointed out that relentless media coverage, repetitive allegations, and visual amplification deliver instant justice long before evidence is assessed in court.
He characterized media trials as “one of the very major issues drowning us today,” indicating that mainstream media inflicts deeper, more enduring damage than social media due to its perceived credibility.
Rohatgi noted,
“You show the same person’s face five million times on television and say this man is a gangster. That destroys far more than social media.”
While acknowledging the constitutional right to free speech as outlined in Article 19(1)(a), he asserted that the media has overstepped its bounds by compromising privacy, dignity, and the right to a fair trial.
Furthermore, he dismissed the concept of specialized media tribunals, calling them a failed experiment prone to executive influence and lacking the constitutional protections afforded to High Courts.
Co-panelist Percival Billimoria discussed how misinformation in mainstream media is shaping judicial perceptions, citing an ongoing case about stray dogs. He pointed out that judges are being influenced by the false narrative that dogs are a direct threat to children.
He stated,
“Today, our judges genuinely believe that dogs kill children. Now, that is not the truth…we cannot live in an echo chamber,”
Billimoria elaborated that the cycle of repeated media reporting and algorithm-driven content amplification creates an echo chamber, reinforcing unverified claims until they seem factual. He emphasized that this issue is prevalent not only on social media but also in mainstream television coverage.
He advised that judges should be wary of basing their decisions on narratives concocted outside the courtroom.
Furthermore, he highlighted the opposition from animal welfare organizations against the indiscriminate removal of dogs, arguing that the issue should be framed around governance failures instead of presenting it as a danger.
He referenced Article 51A of the Constitution, which advocates compassion for living beings, asserting that the focus should shift to addressing ineffective governmental sterilization and animal control programs.
“Let’s tackle the real problem…why are they (stray dogs) there? Because of failure of a government program.”
Media trials refers to a situation where news channels, newspapers, digital platforms, and social media start acting like a court by declaring someone “guilty” or “innocent” before an actual court gives its judgment.
In simple words, it is when the media conducts its own public trial, influences public opinion, and sometimes puts pressure on the investigation or the courts.