Written by Krashnika Gupta,
Intern- Lex Lumen Research Journal,
December 2025
Introduction
Indian democracy rests upon the interdependent functioning of its three indispensable pillars: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The media is regarded as the fourth pillar of our democracy. While the media has the responsibility & power to deliver accurate news to the masses, sometimes it deflects from its actual purpose of serving real, reliable & informed news. This is when a media trial comes into play. When the media sets a narrative based on its own understanding of the case, such as pronouncing who is guilty & who is innocent while the case is still pending and no court ruling has been made, it is referred to as a “media trial”. [1] Certain cases are sensationalized more than others, particularly when it is a high-profile case & when well-known people are involved. Such sensationalism is generally TRP-driven & serves what interests the public or grabs its attention. Consequently, the truth is often repressed under the soft blanket of public perception set by sensationalism. Because people believe what they see, this deflection turns most serious cases into an infotainment, thereby shaping narratives & public perceptions around the case. This damage caused by unregulated media is not confined to just shaping perceptions; it at times also creates a clash with fair trial. Unlike legal proceedings, where both parties are heard before a decision is made, in a media trial, the accused is declared either guilty or innocent based on media’s perception without room for a middle ground. The claims made by the media are based only on how they understand the issue, not on the basis of substantial evidence & legal standards.
Media trial in Aarushi Talwar Case:
According to a journalist Sandip Roy, “How not to report a murder – Aarushi Talwar case is a textbook example.”[2] Since the media claimed that Aarushi’s parents were involved in her killing before the court had pronounced its decision, every action by Rajesh Talwar & Nupur Talwar, & everything related to them was seen as a symbol of guilt. It appeared as if the media had swayed the mind of the public as well as the judicial system through the way it worded its headlines & presented them as verified facts rather than premature statements, which led to life imprisonment of Rajesh & Nupur Talwar.[3] Six major television networks aired news, special programs, and discussions about this double murder case for more than 39.30 hours out of 92 hours of prime time between May 16 and June 7, according to the Centre for Media Studies (CMS).[4] The media blurred the line between press freedom & right to privacy when it scrutinized the personal lives of Aarushi Talwar and her parents. The media viciously sensationalized TRP-driven narratives like honour killing, Rajesh Talwar’s alleged extra-marital affair, couple-swapping and demonizing the Talwars for appearing composed in interviews. [5]The Supreme Court cautioned the media (9th August 2010) against irresponsible reporting affecting the dignity of a crime victim. Advocate Surat Singh filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court in 2008 to restrain the reporting of wild allegations levelled by Noida police.[6] However, on April 24, 2011, the Times of India, a leading news publisher, came up with a sensational headline: “Only Parents Could Have Killed Aarushi.”[7]
According to Sociologist Sanjay Srivastava, a Delhi University professor, “It has become like a morality play. The Talwars have been vilified, they have been accused of being bad parents.” He further remarked that it was because of “a clash of cultures” where police and a certain section of the media and society represent “certain conservative notions of morality” which is in sharp contrast with what they perceive as the “excesses of the upper middle class”.[8]
The media filled the gaps made by improper investigation through moral judgment. They acted like moral entrepreneurs & fed potential TRP-driven narratives based on morality that could bring public attention. Symbols such as Aarushi having male friends, sleepovers & late-night chats were seen as immoral & were deemed symbols of “Aarushi being a girl of loose character” & “Bad Parenting,” thereby strengthening the notion of Honor Killing without substantial evidence. The meanings attached to these symbols were a result of differences in values & morals. This difference of values led to the strengthening of the notion of honor killing through various micro interactions between the media & public, caused by unregulated sensationalism.
In the judgment of the State of UP, through the CBI v. Rajesh Talwar & another,[9] the remarks and analysis were based on moral standards. It was remarked that the clothes of both the accused: Rajesh Talwar & Nupur Talwar, were not found soaked with the blood. It is highly unnatural that parents of deceased Aarushi Talwar would not cling to and hug her on seeing her murdered.
Justice A.K. Mishra remarked, “The learned trial Judge has prejudged things in his own fashion, drawn conclusion by embarking on erroneous analogy conjecturing to the brim on apparent facts telling a different story propelled by vitriolic reasoning,” Justice Mishra continued that the judge tried to solve the Aarushi murder case “like a mathematical puzzle when one solves a given question and then takes something for granted in order to solve that puzzle and question.”
Media trials not only affect public perception of how the people involved in the case are viewed by the public but also affects the judicial trial. A judge decides by examining evidence and relying only on legal standards without the interference of their personal bias & has to be immune to what the media is sensationalizing. In such circumstances, it becomes extremely difficult for the judge to make an unbiased judgment to avoid the miscarriage of justice.[10]
Constitutionality of media trial: Clash between press freedom & right to fair trial
Both the Right to Freedom of Speech & Expression & the Right to Fair Trial are Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution. They often come into conflict in media trials where ethical lines are blurred through sensationalism.
Justice Bhagwati emphasized the significance of Article 19(1)(a) in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.[11] Since every citizen has the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression & it is implied that the press is formed by the citizens hence the press has Freedom of Speech and Expression as well.[12] However, the right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is a Fundamental Right with reasonable restrictions that are “interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”[13] The right to fair trial has been given as a fundamental right under Article 14, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB and Ors. v. State through CBI,[14] because a fair trial decides a person’s right to life and liberty, the court stated that the right to a fair trial should prevail over the role of the media. However, in contemporary times, most of the leading media houses are controlled by business tycoons or political parties; therefore, unbiased reporting is often suppressed under the will of higher ad revenues, availed only if the channel has a high TRP (Television Rating Point). [15] Since media trials are often influenced by Politics & profit, it undermines the legal standard of “innocent until proven guilty” & “beyond a reasonable doubt” Hence, it undermines the principles of justice & fair trial.
Conclusion
Because of unregulated media trials, the public created its own reality around the case. The conviction judgment overlooked the lack of substantial evidence and connected dots through circumstantial evidence, which were contradictory & had several loopholes because of improper investigation. The case was judged based on moral standards & personal values, undermining the spirit of legal standards to judge a case. Rajesh & Nupur Talwar were proving their innocence because they were perceived as guilty through the constant strengthening of the notion of honor killing, thereby undermining the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
[1] Swarnima Arya, Media trial- an injustice to fair trial IIPRD (2021), https://www.iiprd.com/media-trial-an-injustice-to-fair-trial/ (last visited Dec 8, 2025).
[2] Ashmita Kaur, ANALYZING THE EFFECT OF MEDIA TRIALS ON THE PSYCHE OF THE MASSES JETIR (2019), https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1904350.pdf (last visited Dec 8, 2025).
[3]Bhumika dandona, Role-of-media-trials-in-criminal-justice-system. … (2023), https://ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Role-of-Media-Trials-in-Criminal-Justice-System.pdf (last visited Dec 8, 2025).
[4] Ashmita Kaur, ANALYZING THE EFFECT OF MEDIA TRIALS ON THE PSYCHE OF THE MASSES JETIR (2019), https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1904350.pdf (last visited Dec 8, 2025).
[5] Prerna Lidhoo, Aarushi Talwar to Rhea Chakraborty: A tale of two media trials and zero lessons learnt The Wire (2020), https://thewire.in/culture/media/rhea-chakraborty-sushant-singh-rajput-aarushi-talwar-media-trial (last visited Dec 8, 2025).
[6] Implicated by the Media, http://asu.thehoot.org/ (2017), http://asu.thehoot.org/media-watch/media-practice/implicated-by-the-media-10336 (last visited Dec 8, 2025).
[7] Implicated by the Media, http://asu.thehoot.org/ (2017), http://asu.thehoot.org/media-watch/media-practice/implicated-by-the-media-10336 (last visited Dec 8, 2025).
[8] Aarushi Talwar: India’s “most talked-about” murder verdict, BBC News (2013), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-24987305 (last visited Dec 8, 2025).
[9]Rajesh Talwar vs C.B.I & Ors AIR 2012 SC (CRIMINAL) 823
[10] Srishti Ramchandani, “the constitutionality of Media Trials in India – a critique” www.penacclaims.com (2020), http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Srishti-Ramchandani.pdf (last visited Dec 8, 2025).
[11]Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
[12] Srishti Ramchandani, “the constitutionality of Media Trials in India – a critique” www.penacclaims.com (2020), http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Srishti-Ramchandani.pdf (last visited Dec 8, 2025).
[13] Constitution of India, Article 19 (2)
[14] Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB and Ors. Vs. State through CBI, 2004 (72) DRJ 693
[15] Srishti Ramchandani, “THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MEDIA TRIALS IN INDIA – A CRITIQUE” WWW.PENACCLAIMS.COM (2020), http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Srishti-Ramchandani.pdf (last visited Dec 8, 2025).
