Manufactured Public Opinion

Following is a piece written on November 10, 2006, in response to an article which appeared in The Hindu which appeared the previous day:

There are two major issues involved, viz., firstly the role of ‘manufactured public opinion’ [cf. The Hindu dated November 9, 2006 “Tyranny of manufactured public opinion” by Harish Khare] and secondly, the role of a lawyer in a legal system.

Legally, accused is very different from guilty and the latter is supposed to be condemned for the crime and not the former because if the accused is condemned the total legal process that converts the status of the former to the latter after close examination and appreciation of evidence and other incriminatory material is rendered redundant. However, as public opinion seems to be increasingly becoming manufactured by the over-involvement and over-enthusiasm of the media, the fear as to the accused being publicly humiliated before his offence is even proved looms large. There is a danger of the media taking over the role of the judiciary. Several accused people have been maligned by the media to such an extent that their public image is beyond repair. It is difficult for such accused to be ensured a fair process of law because even the honourable Bench member is an audience of the media and somewhere, (s/)he is affected by this manufactured public opinion. Apart from the risk of an innocent accused being unnecessarily and unfairly charged for offences (s/)he has not committed due to unconscious reliance upon the manufactured public opinion, even people like Dawood Ibrahim, who have been pinpointed by the media and also by investigating agencies, tend to avoid trial and extradition on the excuse that due to the manufactured public opinion, it is difficult to ascertain a fair trial in such a jurisdiction.

This is not to say that the media should be manacled or even that restrictions should be imposed through suitable legislation (e.g. a Bill banning ‘sting operations’ which is to be tabled in the forthcoming session of the Parliament). It is the responsibility of the media itself to exercise the divine freedom more meaningfully instead of obstructing the process of law.

Coming to the second issue of what is the moral duty of a lawyer in a legal system. In an adversarial legal system like ours, where a lawyer is the key player in the court, it is important that for a fair trial, a lawyer be ensured to the accused. It is a fundamental ethic of legal practise that a lawyer cannot be afforded to be given the freedom to reject a weak case simply because of that defect in the case. Under any circumstance, the innocent cannot be allowed to be prosecuted, even at the cost of the failure of locating finally who the criminal in a particular case was.