Student’s Research
Global Media Journal – Indian Edition/ Summer Issue / June 2011
INVESTIGATIVE ROLE OF MEDIA: RESPONSIBILITY TO THE SOCIETY
Kathakali Nandi
Student (Session: 2008-11)
Department of Mass Communication and Videography
St. Xavier’s College
Kolkata, India
Website: http://www.sxccal.edu
Email- [email protected]
Abstract: The paper seeks to understand media’s role as an agent of shaping and influencing public
opinion. The paper also takes a look at investigative journalism and its crucial role in helping the masses
to form their opinion about various issues which are in news. It also tries to understand the role of media
interference with the help of two case studies. Using the two case studies, the paper looks at the way
media helps to mould popular opinion of the masses and thus, bring about a justified closure to
controversial issues. The paper tries to reveal the importance of investigative journalism and how far it is
requisite in a democracy like India.
Keywords: Investigative journalism, media intervention, public opinion, mass protests, denial of justice
Introduction
Media has always been considered the watchdog of the society. It is very important to have a free
and fair media in every form of government. In a vast and diverse democracy like India, it is of
utmost importance that the media functions without any form of bias and prejudice as the media
also takes the role of the Opposition. Media is almost like the backbone of the Indian democracy.
The roots of media can be traced back to the times of the Nationalist Movement in India. Ever
since those times, media has been a crucial role in guaranteeing the citizens their rights and
liberties. Besides playing these important roles, media has evolved as a much needed agent of
change in the society. Over the years, media has helped to form public opinion and has been
quite successful in this role. The role of media in a democracy comes into focus especially
during the ongoing process of elections in India. The different types of media (television, radio,
etc.) have helped the masses to be more educated and aware of their surroundings. Investigative
1
journalism is a type of journalism that is much into practice, these days. However, investigative
journalism has been a controversial issue ever since it was practiced. Although this type of
journalism raises several questions regarding journalistic ethics and rules; nevertheless, this type
of journalism has radically helped to shape public opinion. Although the main areas of
investigative journalism mainly revolve around the areas of scandals, crime, politics, corruption,
etc; this particular journalistic style is not just restricted to the above mentioned fields. In India,
investigative journalism came into popular existence in the 1980’s. The Bofor’s scandal in which
the then Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, was accused; was the first instance when
investigative journalism came into focus. This scandal later on led Gandhi’s defeat in the next
elections. This scandal and the type of reporting done by the media made the country take notice
of a new form of journalism that was previously employed by magazines and journals.
Nowadays, investigative journalism is mostly related with sting operations. Even today, sting
operations are widely carried out to report against corrupt ministers and the political setup of the
nation. The Tehelka scam raised a lot of uncomfortable questions about the Indian government,
but it did help in the citizens in forming their opinions about the malpractices of the Indian
government and the corrupt politicians. Many a times, it has been seen that due to the
interference of the media, certain cases have got pushed into the limelight which in turn attracts
the attention of the masses. Media employs several tactics (debates, discussions, talk shows, etc)
to help bring these critical issues into the public sphere thus helping people to get their rights.
This has often led to aggrieved parties getting much needed justice. This role of the media is
discussed with the help of two case studies.
Case Study 1- “Miscarriage Of Justice” in the Jessica Lal Murder Case
a. What Happened
The murder of Delhi model Jessica Lal by Manu Sharma is perhaps one of the most prominent
cases of media interference resulting in justice. The incident took place on April 29, 1999 when
model Jessica Lal was shot dead in a party hosted by socialite Bina Ramani, in her restaurant
Tamarind Court. Lal was working as celebrity barmaid in Ramani’s restaurant. The main
accused was Siddharth Vashisht, better known as Manu Sharma, the son of Venod Sharma, a
prominent Congress leader in Haryana. Manu Sharma, in an inebriated state, had asked for a
drink from Lal which she refused as the bar was already closed. Lal kept refusing Sharma even
2
after he offered money to her in exchange for a drink. This enraged Sharma who took out his
pistol and shot twice at Lal on point blank range, thus killing her on the spot. In the ongoing
legal procedure, about three hundred witnesses were interrogated in a lower court in Delhi.
However, as the legal procedure carried on, all the witnesses turned hostile and there were lack
of proper evidences to nail down Sharma as Lal’s killer. Thus, due to lack of evidences, the case
had to be shut and the court acquitted the prime nine suspects, including Sharma, on 21st
February, 2006.
However, this was not taken lightly by the Indian masses. The involvement of numerous highprofile people in this murder case was anyway a topic of discussion in the media. The guest list
of the party included the who’s who in the fields of fashion, modeling and Indian politics.
Practically all the guests were interrogated by the police and were summoned in the court
proceedings. Other than this, the fact that the final verdict took seven long years was another
thing that people were talking about. The acquittal of Sharma and the other accused in the case,
led to a widespread public uproar which was initiated by the media. News channel NDTV is
credited with forming a strong public opinion against Sharma and others who were allowed to
roam scot-free after committing such a serious crime. In the initial stages of police interrogation
of Sharma, he admits to have shot at Lal. This tape was never produced at the court at the time of
the proceedings which led to Sharma denying that he had shot at Lal. However, it was acquired
and aired by NDTV which bared the truth. This led to public outcry who demanded that justice
has been denied. A widespread media campaign followed which grabbed the attention of the
masses throughout India.
b. Media Interference in This Case
The final verdict, which was passed on the Jessica Lal murder case, was a shining example of
media interference. NDTV channel received thousands of text messages from various people
urging that immediate action be taken against Sharma and the other accused. People were losing
faith in the Indian judiciary and the media had thrown light on this very fact. The media, along
with Sabrina Lal (Jessica’s sister) successfully organized a candle light vigil in front of India
Gate in New Delhi. Various support groups were formed to support the cause of “miscarriage of
justice”, as termed by the media. These groups consisted of students, retired IAS and Army
officers and MNC executives. Thus, India arose to the situation and very soon people from
3
various walks of life were standing up for the rights denied to Jessica Lal. On 9th September,
2006; newsmagazine Tehelka organized a sting operation on the witnesses of the case in which
they revealed that Venod Sharma had bribed them hefty amounts of money in order to stay mum
about the truth in court. This sting operation was aired by news channel STAR News. A poll by
newspaper Hindustan Times revealed that on a scale from 1 to 10, the faith that Indians had on
the judiciary was near about 2.7. The immense public support and the growing pressure from
media led the Delhi High Court to take notice and the case was reopened after an appeal by the
Delhi Police. Manu Sharma was finally pronounced guilty of killing Jessica Lal and he was
given life sentence on 20th December, 2006. The efforts of the media helped the case to be
reopened and justice was finally delivered.
This case study proves that media interference dramatically changed the course of the case. The
intervention of media was very much desired as media helped the case to be highlighted as an
example of gross injustice. This case also unveiled the corrupt Indian system and the level to
which they favoured those with power and money. The mass protests that it sparked off in India
resulted in the case being reopened. This is a classic example of media intervention resulting in a
positive change in society. One of the reasons why millions of Indians came ahead to support the
case was because they could relate to the case. Delhi is infamous as being one of the most unsafe
cities when it comes to the safety and security of women. The fact that the prime accused of such
a heinous crime were left off without any punishment, angered the people throughout the nation.
Media heavily resorted to investigative journalism in this case which paid off, ultimately. The
sting operations, carried out by Tehelka, helped to unearth the truth and helped in the legal
proceedings of the case. Media acted as a regulator and more like a social activist to help the
deceased Jessica Lal get much needed justice. Fiery headlines like “No One Killed Jessica”,
“Miscarriage of justice”, “Jessica Lal- 11 year-long battle for justice” from various newspapers
and journals provoked the masses into starting public protests and standing for other’s rights.
Such was the magnitude of the fight for justice by the masses that this case was made into a topic
of a Hindi film “No One Killed Jessica” by Raj Kumar Gupta in 2011. Never before had India
witnessed public protests of such a magnitude. The formation of public opinion regarding this
case can be credited entirely to the media.
Case Study 2- Priyadarshini Mattoo Case: Justice Delayed Not Denied
4
a. What Happened
The rape and murder case of Priyadarshini Mattoo and its subsequent lengthy trial came into the
limelight soon after the Jessica Lal murder case. Priyadarshini Mattoo was a 23-year old law
student, living in Delhi. She was found raped and murdered at her New Delhi residence on 23 rd
January, 1996. The prime accused in this case was Santosh Kumar Singh, Mattoo’s senior in her
college. Singh had been harassing and stalking Mattoo, both “in person and over the phone” for
about two years prior to killing her in the most gruesome way. It is also said that Mattoo had
filed a police complaint against Singh and was provided with a personal security officer, after
Mattoo stated in her complaint that Singh was stalking her for quite some days. However, this
did not have any desired effect as Singh belonged to an influential family; his father J.P. Singh
was the then Inspector General of Police of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. In the duration
of the trial, he served as the Joint Commissioner of Police in Delhi, the very city where the crime
was committed. On the morning of 23rd January, 1996, Santosh Singh was seen knocking on
Mattoo’s house, in the Vasant Kunj area of New Delhi. Singh was let in by a domestic help of
the house. He entered the house saying that he wanted a compromise in the legal complaints that
Mattoo had charged against him. Consequently, he raped her, strangled her with an electric wire
and battered her head nearly14 times with a motorcycle helmet.
The contours of the case soon shifted to a high profile murder case from a case of a heinous
crime. The case was passed to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) due the fact that
Santosh’s father was an IPS officer. In the aftermath of the horrific crime, Santosh Singh was
arrested after the complaints filed against him by Mattoo, witness testimonies, DNA and
fingerprint samples, broken motorcycle helmet found in the scene of the crime, and other
evidences. These were enough to nail Santosh Singh as the one guilty of the crime. However, on
3rd December, 1999; Additional Sessions Judge G.P. Thareja acquitted Singh saying that “he
(Santosh Singh) is the man who committed the crime” but was forced to acquit him due to lack
of proper evidences, giving Singh the benefit of doubt. Judge Thareja further blamed the Delhi
Police for its inaction and also stated that the father of the accused (J.P. Singh) had used his
power to influence the authorities. In his 450-page judgment, Judge Thareja wondered whether
the “CBI during trial knowingly acted in this manner to favour the accused.” Judge Thareja
mentioned that the CBI had not followed the “official procedure”, had kept away from the court
5
evidence collected by the court, had fabricated with the DNA samples and had denied the court
of its opportunity to review the fingerprint samples. Judge Thareja said, “The State had failed to
bring home the charge of rape against the accused” although he had already declared Singh as
“the man who committed the crime”. Therefore, due to the lack of evidences, the court acquitted
Singh.
b. Media Interference in This Case
The final verdict of this case met with severe public outcry and heavy criticisms from the media.
The case had occurred right after the acquittals in the Jessica Lal murder case, which had sparked
off massive wave of public protests in the country and heavy criticisms from the media. In the
same way, the acquittal of Santosh Singh had caught the collective attention of the media as well
as of the public. This was followed by widespread mass protests and media arose to this
occasion. Chaman Lal Matoo, Priyadarshini’s father, was giving frequent interviews to the
media, demanding justice for his deceased daughter. Media picked up on the fact that despite so
many clinching evidences, Singh had managed to walk out of jail, as a free man, without being
proven guilty of a single charge. In the course of a few years after his acquittal, Singh had even
got married, fathered a child and had started his career as a lawyer in Delhi. Media used its
powerful tool of investigative journalism to find out the lapses in the murder case and very soon
it was bringing into the public’s notice, how justice was denied to Priyadarshini Mattoo. This
created a massive wave of uproar in the masses who were demanding that the case be reopened.
In a similar way like that of the Jessica Lal murder case, media resorted to investigative
journalism to unearth hidden facts and evidences in this case. In a previous report by the CBI
submitted to the court, it was stated that Virender Prasad, the domestic help in Mattoo’s house
was in hiding and was untraceable. Prasad was a prosecution witness and was considered an
important witness of this case as he was the one who allowed Singh to enter Mattoo’s residence
on the day when the crime was committed. Journalists had traced him to a village in Bihar while
sleuths had claimed that he was missing. The apparent absence of Prasad at the time of the trial
had been one of the reasons of obstruction of justice. This further created a wave of public
outrage and the masses were demanding an answer to these lapses in the Indian judiciary. It was
getting evident that the public were gradually losing faith and confidence on the Indian judiciary.
The widespread public outrage was creating intense pressure on the CBI and the Indian judiciary.
6
On 29th February, 200 the CBI ultimately submitted an appeal against the verdict of the District
Court in the Delhi High Court. This was considered a milestone achievement by the Indian
media. Intense media coverage by various news channels and newspapers was creating a strong
pressure on the CBI and the judiciary. The nation was getting tired of hearing cases of failure of
the judiciary and rampant corruption and was looking for a radical change. People were
organizing candle light marches in various parts of the country, praying and hoping for justice
for Mattoo. The intense scrutiny by the media had helped the case to be reopened and the CBI
was also compelled to accept that it needed to pull up its socks in order to be more efficient in
their tasks. Due to the severe and increasing media scrutiny, the hearing of the case was taken up
on a daily basis by justices P.K. Bhasin and R.S. Sodhi. This is a very rare feat and the credit of
this task can be entirely claimed by the media. Media interference helped in the speedy trial of
this case. The Delhi High Court took about 42 days to pass the final verdict. Passing a verdict in
such a short duration was indeed a first-of-its-kind event in the history of the Indian judiciary.
Finally, on 17th October, 2006, the Delhi High Court pronounced Santosh Kumar Singh guilty
under sections 376 (rape) and 302 (murder) under the Indian Penal Code and was awarded death
sentence. The Court had passed this verdict based on numerous hard-hitting evidences. The
Court also blamed the inaction and partiality of the Delhi Police in coming to the aid of Mattoo
when she had filed a complaint against Singh as his father; J.P. Singh was the then senior IPS
officer Director General of Delhi Police. However, on 6th October 2010, the death sentence was
reduced to life sentence after Santosh Singh filed a plea in the Supreme Court. In spite, of this,
the turn of events in this case shows that although justice was delayed for Priyadarshini Mattoo,
justice was not denied. This only proves the efficiency, power and social responsibility of media
in a democracy. This is why the case is considered as a landmark reversal of judgments in the
history Indian judiciary.
Conclusion
Journalism depends on the people’s perspective of news and news values. It is said that news is a
mere construction of an event or a happening or person. News selects, processes, produces and
shapes an event or happening. But it totally depends on us, readers, to make our own sense of the
news. However, over the years, media has also assumed the role of an opinion maker and creator
of public opinion. This is highlighted with the help of the two case studies mentioned above.
7
Over the years, we have seen that the power of press is to bring about social and political change
or economic development in a country. The power of press can also be understood in the basis of
how the people respond and react to the news. As is seen from the two case studies, media has
been quite powerful in forming public opinion. There was widespread outrage and protests after
both the murder cases were reported. People had realized that justice had been denied and it was
necessary to protest and speak aloud. Both the cases involved high-profile people and this fact
made the people all the more interested and aware of the proceedings of the cases. As is seen in
the two case studies, we see that media interference helped in the rightful and proper closure of
the case. The two murder cases are classic examples of reactive and responsible journalism
which helped citizens get their rights. One of the primary functions of the media in a democracy
is to act as the opposition of the government and also stay neutral in the process. This role of the
media is highlighted in both the cases. None of the cases would have got so much of importance
in the judiciary had the media not intervened. The investigations on part of media also helped to
accelerate the trials of the cases. Both the cases also exposed the lopsided judiciary of India and
how influential and powerful people manage to get away even after committing serious crimes.
Both the cases can be considered as measuring sticks of the power of media in influencing the
public and ensuring justice to the citizens. The use of investigative journalism in the two case
studies highlights the power of media and the social responsibility of media in a democratic
setup. Both the cases are classic examples of high profile cases where initially, people with
power and influence were managing to get away scot-free. This very fact was highlighted by
media in both the cases and ultimately media helped the cases to be reopened. The same people,
who were earlier acquitted, were finally put behind bars and justice prevailed. Therefore, media
interference helped the hidden facts to be unearthed thereby allowing the judiciary to take notice
of the loopholes and extensive malpractices of the administrative system in India. It is very
important to have a responsive and responsible media in order to have a healthy democracy.
Indian media is witness to various incidents ever since its inception. Investigative journalism was
the main tool used by journalists for both these cases. This type of journalism is relatively new in
the country and is still a topic of debate. However, these cases in which investigative journalism
was used proved the power of media in forming healthy public opinion. This function of media
thereby allows the development of a strong democracy, thereby allowing for healthy social
development in the country.
8
9