LIJDLR

Presumption of Innocence

MEDIA TRIAL & JUSTICE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Volume III Issue IV /

MEDIA TRIAL & JUSTICE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS Sholanki Bhowmik, Assistant Professor of Law, Saroj International University, Lucknow (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.184 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.

MEDIA TRIAL & JUSTICE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS Read More »

REIMAGINING BAIL JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND THE REVERSE BURDEN PARADIGM

Volume III Issue II /

REIMAGINING BAIL JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND THE REVERSE BURDEN PARADIGM Shreyashi Verma, BBA-LL.B., Third Year, Student at Institute of Legal Studies- SRMU, Lucknow. Ahmed Mehdi Khan, LL.B., Third Year, Student at University of Lucknow. Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.77 The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) was introduced to prevent complicated financial crimes and to make sure that money gained through illegal activities does not go beyond the law’s reach. Section 45, which is a crucial element of its enforcement, imposes strict conditions for granting bail. It is also known as the ‘twin conditions.’ It effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, meaning the accused has to prove their innocence through evidence and assure the court that if they are released, they won’t be engaged in any additional offence. Although the Supreme Court in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case confirmed that the conditions in question are constitutional and reasonable when it comes to economic offences. Still, there are ongoing worries about how this provision might impact the rights to a fair trial and the principles of procedural equity. It has led to a significant constitutional debate regarding personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The research methodology includes a detailed analysis of statutory texts, interpretation of parliamentary discussions, and study of landmark judgements from both Indian and comparative jurisdictions. We place special emphasis on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India, along with subsequent rulings that demonstrate the judiciary’s progressive view regarding the reverse burden. It appears that the courts have been shifting between strict enforcement and partial constitutional arrangement. However, the larger issue of disproportionate pre-trial custody remains unaddressed. Although the reverse burden was intended to reduce money laundering, its rigid application without proper judicial oversight seems to infringe on fair trial. This article undertakes a doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis of Section 45, uncovering its legislative amendments, judicial responses, and evaluating its alignment with established constitutional norms.

REIMAGINING BAIL JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND THE REVERSE BURDEN PARADIGM Read More »