The popular quote, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on”, perfectly captures the modern-day paradox of the lightning speed of accusations versus the glacial pace of justice. The principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is often celebrated in theory but is compromised in practice. While a person is legally a ‘suspect’ or an ‘accused’ and not a ‘criminal’ until the court of law delivers a verdict, a single headline or a viral news story is often enough to brand the accused for life.
In India, the right to reputation is inextricably linked to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right protects an individual’s personality, dignity, and social identity. An allegation, especially one involving heinous crimes, can tarnish a person’s reputation irreparably, irrespective of whether he/she is ultimately convicted. Statistics reveal a harsh reality. According to data from the National Crime Records Bureau for 2021, the conviction rate for rape cases in India stood at less than 30%. While this does not diminish the suffering of genuine victims or suggest all accusations are false, it does highlight the probability of individuals accused of rape being ultimately found not guilty. Yet, by the time the acquittal comes, their professional lives and social standing may already be destroyed; their families face public shame and ostracism; for many, a lost job or a broken reputation is a punishment far greater than any sentence, and it is handed down before a single piece of evidence is tested in court.
Unfair trial
Media trials are a perfect example of why the identity of the accused should be
preserved and protected. When the media publicly exposes the accused’s name
and personal details before any crime is proven, it damages the accused’s reputation, causes severe mental distress, and hinders the right to a fair trial by influencing public opinion unfairly. In cases like those involving Rhea Chakraborty and Aryan Khan, the accused had to endure intense media trials despite the accusations being proven baseless later.
The Indian judicial system, while striving for justice, has a significant gap in this regard. While the law, specifically Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), strictly prohibits revealing the identity of the victim of a sexual assault, there is no corresponding legal provision to protect the identity of the accused. This brings us to a pressing question: should we not protect the victim’s privacy while also safeguarding the reputation of the accused until the latter’s guilt is proven? New Zealand’s Criminal Procedure Act 2011, specifically Section 201, provides
for the automatic suppression of the identity of defendants in specified sexual offence cases. The law reflects New Zealand’s broader approach to safeguarding the fair trial rights of the accused while ensuring that the reputations of individuals are protected from prejudgment and media trials.
In Ms. X versus Mr. A and Others, the Supreme Court took a significant step towards anonymising individuals accused in rape cases that are found to be false. This move reflects the court’s growing concern over the damaging impact of media exposure on the accused, emphasising the need to safeguard the presumption of innocence and ensure a fair trial. Legislation should now step up to establish clear, comprehensive laws regulating media conduct with enforceable guidelines that balance the fundamental right to freedom of the press with the equally important rights of accused persons to privacy and a fair trial.