This study explores the growing phenomenon of media trials in India and its complex relationship with the justice system. Although the media is often celebrated as the “fourth pillar of democracy,” its conduct in high-profile criminal cases has raised difficult questions about fairness, ethics, and the limits of press freedom. Over the years, news reporting has moved beyond its traditional role of informing the public and has, at times, taken the shape of parallel investigations that frame narratives long before courts begin their work. This paper critically examines how such premature conclusions and sensational coverage can influence public opinion, affect the rights of the accused, and indirectly place pressure on judges, lawyers, and investigators. Drawing on doctrinal research, case laws, and statutory developments, the study traces the evolution of Indian media regulations and discusses the tension between the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the fundamental right to a fair trial. It also evaluates the impact of media trials on privacy, the presumption of innocence, and the administration of justice through an analysis of landmark cases such as the Jessica Lall trial, the Nirbhaya case, the Aarushi Talwar case, and recent incidents like the Aryan Khan and RG Kar matters. The paper concludes that while media trials can promote accountability and social awareness, unchecked sensationalism poses serious risks to judicial independence. It argues for stronger regulatory mechanisms, ethical guidelines, and public awareness to ensure that media freedom and fair trial rights coexist without undermining each other.