Introduction
The media has emerged as one of the most powerful sources of public information. While its reach has enabled citizens to stay informed, this influence also raises complex legal and ethical questions, particularly in criminal proceedings. A growing reliance on media content blurs the distinction between public interest and public curiosity, often at the expense of the rights of accused individuals and victims.
In the recent landmark case of Shahid Ali v. The State, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, through a judgment authored by Justice Athar Minallah, critically examined the role of the media in criminal trials and its impact on the rights to a fair trial, presumption of innocence, and privacy. This judgment underscores the fine line between the public’s right to know and the accused’s right to be treated justly under the law.
Factual Background
The appellant, Shahid Ali, was accused of the murder of a minor child and was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). He was sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision later upheld by the High Court. The conviction was primarily based on:
- Last seen evidence presented by a chance witness;
- Recovery of the alleged crime weapon (an iron file);
- A purported confession made by the accused to a journalist was later broadcast on a private television channel.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- Whether the last seen evidence and testimony of a chance witness could be relied upon for a conviction.
- Whether the recovery of a crime weapon is a binding link of circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the confessional statement recorded by a journalist during police custody is admissible as evidence?
Court’s Reasoning and Verdict
The Supreme Court critically examined all three evidentiary components. While the first two, last seen evidence and the alleged recovery of the weapon, were found to be insufficient and unreliable on their own, the third element, the televised confession, also related to today’s topic, raised particularly serious legal concerns and was addressed in detail.
The Court ruled that confessions made by an accused while in police custody are inherently inadmissible unless recorded in compliance with strict procedural safeguards. Specifically, such confessions must be made before a magistrate, as required by Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Court reinforced that any statement made by an accused to a police officer, or while in police custody, is inadmissible under Articles 37 to 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, unless the accused was in the immediate presence of a magistrate. The judgment observed that statements obtained in a custodial environment are made in a “vulnerable and debilitating environment,” and are thus susceptible to influence, coercion, or manipulation, especially when recorded by individuals who are not legally authorized to do so, such as journalists. The court here emphasized that even if all the procedure has been followed in recording a confession, it is the duty of the court to discharge an onerous responsibility while determining whether a confession has been made voluntarily, and that it is also true that reliance was placed on Sh. Muhammad Amjad v. The State (PLD 2003 SC 704).
The Court held that the confessional statement recorded by a media person and aired on a national TV channel was not only unlawful but also incapable of being treated as judicially reliable. It emphasized that the police cannot delegate their investigative powers to third parties, including members of the press. As such, the so-called confession was excluded from evidentiary consideration. This, coupled with unreliable testimony from the chance witness and the lack of credible recovery of the weapon, led the Court to conclude that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, therefore, was extended to the accused—a principle firmly embedded in criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, the Court converted the leave into an appeal, allowed the same, and ordered the acquittal of the appellant.
Judicial Observations on Media Involvement
In its detailed remarks, the Supreme Court expressed grave concern over the conduct of the media in the investigative and pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings. The Court found it troubling that journalists had been granted unauthorized access to jails and police stations, where they recorded statements of under-trial prisoners and disseminated them to the public. Such practices, the Court noted, seriously compromise the procedural fairness guaranteed to every individual under the Constitution.
The judgment emphasized that media reporting in criminal cases, particularly before the conclusion of the trial, can result in the formation of premature and often biased public opinions. The public perception created by such reporting not only taints the image of the accused but can also influence the objectivity of those tasked with administering justice. Judges, prosecutors, and investigation officers are human and, like the general public, may be subconsciously affected by the dominant media narrative. This issue is especially critical in emotionally charged cases, such as the murder of a child, where public sentiment is already heightened and susceptible to manipulation.
While the Court acknowledged the constructive role of the media in promoting transparency and facilitating the public’s right to information under Article 19-A of the Constitution, it stressed that this right is not absolute. It must be balanced against the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A and the right to privacy and dignity under Article 14. The Court warned that media reports which include speculative commentary on the guilt or innocence of an accused, particularly those involving evidence or confessions, amount to a “media trial”. This undermines the foundational presumption of innocence and risks turning an accused person into a social outcast even before the legal process concludes. The judgment ultimately cautioned regulatory authorities such as PEMRA and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to take immediate steps to prevent such violations and to ensure that journalistic access to under-trial prisoners is lawfully restricted.
Conclusion
Justice Minallah’s judgment is significant in protecting crucial rights of the accused and victims before the trial is concluded. It also highlights the evil of the police department, which goes beyond the law and gives excessive power to private persons, especially journalists, to investigate the accused. To curb this violation of procedural laws and the rights of the accused, the court has rightly brought it to the notice of media regulatory authorities and the respective governments to take immediate steps as are required to safeguard the rights of parties involved in criminal proceedings and the integrity and fairness of the process of investigation and trial.
