Media overstepping sanctity of judiciary; agenda driven debates in media's Kangaroo Courts: Allahabad High Court says denying bail to Ashish Mishra

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday while denying bail to Ashish Mishra, the key accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri Violence case, made notable observations on media trial.

Court said that "at various stages and forums, it has been seen that ill-informed and agenda driven debates are being undertaken by media running Kangaroo Courts."

The single bench of Justice Krishan Pahal stated that the media has an indispensable role in highlighting the matters pertaining to public utility at large and it is supposed to provide news to the society, but sometimes individual views overshadow the news and thus, put an adverse effect on truth.

Citing examples of high-profile criminal cases such as that of Jessica Lal, Indrani Mukherjea and Aarushi Talwar, the Court commented that media is often seen “overstepping upon the sanctity of judiciary”. The Court further observed,

“The vital difference between the convict and accused has to be looked into by keeping at stake the cardinal principles of ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ and ‘guilt beyond reasonable doubt’. Media trial apart from taking up the investigation on its own leads to forming public opinion against the suspect even before the court takes cognizance of the case as a result the accused who should have been presumed innocent is treated a criminal. The excessive publicity of the suspect in the media before the trial in a court of law, either incriminates a fair trial or results in characterizing the accused or suspect as the one who has certainly committed the crime. The reason the jury members were kept aloof of the access to media was obvious. Classic examples of the menace are the cases of K.M. Nanavati and O.J. Simpson.”

Court added that the problem has been multiplied by electronic and social media, especially with the help of tool kits.

On the merits of the bail plea of applicant Ashish Mishra, it was held that the District Administration had issued a proclamation under Section 144 CrPC, which was in effect on the date of the incident and was equally applicable to not only the applicant and his associates but also to the agitating/protesting farmers and the same had not been followed by either of the parties.

Court held that the presence of three vehicles at the spot of the incident from one of which Mishra was seen coming out was a crucial circumstance weighing against him.

Moreover, Court took note of two FIRs lodged by the witnesses having been threatened. Therefore, taking into consideration the complicity of the applicant, apprehension of witnesses being influenced, the severity of punishment given the nature and gravity of the accusations, and placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012), Court dismissed the bail plea of Mishra without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Case Title: Ashish Mishra @ Monu v. State of U.P.