The Constitution of India very clearly divides powers between
the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Executive power vests in the
president and in officers appointed by him through whom he will exercise his
powers. This applies mutatis mutandis (making the small changes that are
necessary for each individual case) to the states also, except that here it is
in the governor that executive power vests. It is the duty of the executive,
within the laws framed by the legislature, to administer the country. The
legislature itself enacts laws keeping in mind the provisions of the
Constitution and directive principles given therein. The judiciary interprets
laws and adjudicates all disputes. The role of each of these organs of the
state is independent, though there is a coming together at the margin of the
executive and the legislature and, to the extent that effect has to be given to
the judgments of courts, at the margin of all three organs.
Adjudication is entirely within the domain of the judiciary,
which is why so much emphasis is laid in the Constitution on the independence
of the judiciary. Under the umbrella of the Supreme Court we have the high
courts in which all the judges are given constitutional protection against
removal except through a process of impeachment. The entire subordinate
judiciary, from the district and sessions judge right down to the civil judge
at the lowest level and judicial magistrate, is under the control of the high
court and totally immunised from any interference by the executive. Under
Article 227, superintendence of courts and tribunals located within the
territorial jurisdiction of a high court is vested in the high court, which is
empowered to lay down the rules and procedures to be followed by subordinate
courts.
The independence of the judiciary and its sole authority to
adjudicate and pronounce judgment are laboured because in the ultimate analysis
it is only a court that can judge and deliver a decree or a judgment. In
criminal matters the police can investigate, the media can report, but only the
court can judge.
There is a presumption of innocence till guilt is proved
beyond reasonable doubt, which is not only a basic principle of Anglo-Saxon
jurisprudence but is also a part of our legal system. That is why under Article
20 of the Constitution no person may be convicted of an offence except for
violation of a law. Under Article 21, a person cannot be deprived of life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Under
Article 20(3), a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself in
any criminal proceedings. Under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, the
burden of proof lies on the person who alleges a fact or accuses a person of
having committed a crime. That is the refrain of Chapter VII of the Indian
Evidence Act. Under Indian law, the accused has to prove nothing, certainly not
his innocence. All he has to do is to rebut the admissibility, relevance and
credibility of the evidence led against him and if any doubt remains, then it
is the accused who will get the benefit of doubt.
The police investigates, determines whether prima facie an
offence can be brought home to an accused and then proceeds under CrPC (Code of
Criminal Procedure) Chapter XII to prosecute the offender in a competent court.
The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 does not
supersede the constitutional competence of courts to pronounce judgment, nor
does it permit the media to report matters in a way that would suggest that a
certain person is in fact either the perpetrator of an offence or is the victim
of the actions of a particular offender. Unfortunately, the Indian media, in particular
some TV channels, are only too eager to act as accusers, inquisitors and judges
and pronounce judgment freely on cases that lie within the domain of the
judiciary. One recent example is that of the death of D K Ravi, an IAS officer
of the Karnataka cadre of the 2009 batch who was found hanging from a ceiling
fan in his house. Bangalore Police took notice of this and reported the matter
to the nearest executive magistrate under Section 174 of the CrPC. The media
jumped on this, claimed Ravi was an honest officer who as district magistrate
of Kolar took action against illegal sand mining and subsequently, as joint
commissioner, commercial taxes, launched a probe against land developers for
tax evasion. The media concluded, without any investigation, that Ravi is an
honest officer who has annoyed vested interests and these persons murdered him,
and that he had not committed suicide. The Karnataka Police have been upbraided
by the media, whose reports have triggered a popular agitation, for not registering
an offence under Section 302 of the IPC and instead having recourse to Section
174. Unfortunately, the agitators and the mediapersons do not seem to have read
Section 174 of the CrPC, which requires the police, on receiving information
about a suspicious death, an alleged suicide, an accidental death, etc., to
immediately report the matter to the nearest executive magistrate, who is then
required to conduct an inquest. The magistrate can record evidence, send the
body for post-mortem and subsequently to direct the course of action which, if
the death appears to be a homicide, could take the form of recording of a FIR
and subsequent investigation. The Karnataka Police had no option except to
follow this course and I think the police have acted appropriately in D K
Ravi’s case.
Before being judgmental our press must learn not to suddenly
make a person a hero and someone else to be a villain. Do the media know enough
about D K Ravi to decide here is an honest young officer who has been virtually
tortured mentally by vested interests? Did he make any complaint in this behalf
to his own superiors? One story emerging is that perhaps Ravi wanted a
relationship with someone that was not reciprocated and, therefore, he could
have been perturbed. All this will come out in the course of investigation and,
therefore, any prejudgment in this behalf would be totally premature.
Unfortunately, a media that is becoming increasingly immature in its hunt for
sensationalism recognises none of the rules of prudence because it is so much
easier to typecast people as heroes and villains in the unending saga, which it
loves to create.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Media-as-Arbiter-of-Law-Harmful/2015/03/27/article2731556.ece
