Of TRPs & trauma: The casual cruelty of media trials

When 25-year-old law student Namrata Bora from Golaghat lost her life in an accident in Meghalaya’s Ri Bhoi district recently, it wasn’t just her family that was shaken.

The media went into overdrive. And what could have been a quiet, dignified pursuit of justice turned into a shrill theatre of speculation, innuendo, and televised outrage.

In a matter of hours, the tragedy was recast through sensational frames – ‘Love jihad’, murder mystery, morality tale. TV studios morphed into courtrooms, headlines into verdicts, and the young woman’s life — and choices — became fodder for prime-time debate.

Media speculations and trials fueled the death of Namrata Bora into a character assassination scene

Her lifestyle, religion, relationships, even wardrobe were all placed under a microscope, not by investigators but by panelists and hashtag warriors. Though the frenzy has since cooled, it leaves behind troubling questions that can’t be ignored.

We now live in a time where justice is increasingly outsourced — to the din of 24×7 news cycles, to social media timelines and YouTube rants. Verdicts are no longer delivered only in courts; they are whispered, shouted, and trended online. What began as the media’s role to inform has mutated into a performance of judgement.

The phenomenon — popularly known as a “media trial” — has become a dangerous spectacle. It blurs the sacred lines between journalism and judiciary, between scrutiny and slander. In the rush to be first, we often forget to be right. In the urge to frame a narrative, we sacrifice nuance.

“When media turns into a courtroom and anchors into judges, the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is not just ignored—it’s dismantled,” says advocate Mousumi Chatterjee. This dismantling, she warns, threatens the very foundation of a fair trial.

The dangerous drift from investigation to sensationalism

Media trials were once the domain of a few high-profile cases. Today, they’ve become a pervasive culture. With digital media exploding, anyone with a smartphone and a following can frame narratives, point fingers, and influence mass opinion. And amid this noise, fact-checking and ethical reporting often takes a backseat.

Anupam Chakraborty, editor of a news broadcasting channel, voices a sobering concern, “Unfortunately, there’s less investigation in today’s journalism and more personal attack. Dragging a family into the analysis of an individual’s antisocial act is dangerous. Journalism is now causing suffering beyond the accused, to their entire families.”

The psychological toll is not abstract. Counsellor Loya Agarwala has seen first-hand how media-led scrutiny affects individuals and families.

“It brings social isolation, anxiety, emotional trauma. When the media prematurely declares someone guilty, the community reacts. Even if the person is later acquitted, the stain on their family remains. Children grow up with that trauma. The damage is generational," she says.

The Meghalaya murder case of Raja Raghuvanshi, that got national media attention and media trials too (Here Sonam Raghuvanshi & Raja Raghuvanshi)

The digital age and the race for clicks

The shift from traditional to digital platforms has only intensified the problem. As Pranay Bordoloi, consulting editor of another news channel, points out, “Print had the Press Council of India. Electronic media had the I&B Ministry. But digital media? No control at all. It’s instant, and it’s everywhere.”

He adds that the lack of oversight has led to competition-fuelled sensationalism, citing the recent Raja and Sonam Raghuvanshi murder case in Meghalaya. National media went so far as to claim that human sacrifices were performed at the Kamakhya Temple in Guwahati - a complete falsehood that displayed both ignorance and bias.

“That story defamed the entire Northeast,” Bordoloi says, adding, “It was a judgmental portrayal without even a basic understanding of the region.”

A deepening crisis of trust and accountability

For Nitumoni Saikia, Editor-in-Chief of a popular news channel, the erosion of editorial responsibility began with television and has worsened with social media. “Earlier, newspapers at least filtered content. Now, anyone can go live and pronounce judgments. There’s no patience to wait for law and justice.”

This impatience, compounded by unchecked virality, creates ripple effects that last far beyond news cycles. Even counselling, which is meant to support victims and accused alike, gets drowned in public noise.

As Agarwala notes, “Counseling is neutral and crucial. But if society already believes someone is guilty, that stigma can’t be undone easily, not even by court acquittals.”

The solution isn’t to silence the media, but to strike a balance between the freedom to report and the responsibility to uphold justice.

When the press takes the stand before the court does

As Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, Article 21 ensures the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a fair trial and privacy.

The judiciary has consistently warned against media overreach and reminded journalists that their power must be exercised with restraint, not recklessness.

Because justice isn't just about the outcome of a case; it's about the dignity of the process, the faith in the system, and the rights of every individual, regardless of what a headline might say!