The principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a mainstay of Criminal Justice system worldwide, including Nepal. The principle suggests that anyone accused of any crime must be presumed innocent until that person is declared guilty by a competent court beyond a reasonable doubt. When securing a conviction, proof must be presented for each and every factor that defines the crime and no single element of factor can be left unproven.
The principle of innocent until proven guilty has deep historical roots, and when looking it we can trace back as far as Roman law, particularly the Digest of the 6th century, which reflected that the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused. Similarly, the Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia law) upholds the notion that punishment should not be administered when there is doubt.
This shows a clear reflection of the presumption of innocence. An important moment in the evolution of this idea came with the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), where Article 9 explicitly stated that every man is presumed innocent until declared guilty.
In modern legal frameworks, this principle is equally and firmly established. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) has successfully enshrines the principle in Article 11(1), and the European Convention on Human Rights echoes the same principle in Article 6.
This ensures a fair trial guarantee. In the United States, although not directly mentioned in the Constitution, the principle is inherently protected through the 5th and 14th Amendments under the due process clauses. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also reinforces this standard through Article 14(2), marking it as a universal legal norm to be followed by all the signatories.
In many countries and under many legal systems, including common law and civil law systems (not to be confused with the other kind of civil law, which deals with non-criminal legal issues), the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial.
The Constitution of Nepal and the National Penal Code 2017 have also embedded the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ within their legal architecture and this has been enshrined firmly and most notably through Article 20 (Right to Justice) and Article 23 (Protection against Preventive Detention) of the Constitution, as well as Section 12 of the Penal Code. These provisions collectively safeguard due process of the law and uphold the presumption of innocence ultimately ensuring that no individual is condemned without a fair trial and just proceedings.
The principle is not just a mere courtesy of a courtroom phenomenon but a significant element of civilised jurisprudence. But today, this principle is slowly being eroded, not by the dishonesty of the judges or by shady lawyers, but by the very institutions that we believe are tasked to report the truth: The Media.
Once they were the gatekeepers of the truth, now they have become the adjudicators turning the headlines into verdicts, performing trials on twitter, arbitrating the applications registered in Instagram and creating a scenario where being accused is very much close to being convicted.
When we look into the anatomy of character assassination, for instance:
In India, Rhea Chakraborty, an actress who was forcefully without any evidences tied to the death of her partner, actor Sushant Singh Rajput, faced a massive and intense media scrutiny. News headlines and coverages practically turned it into a trial on a daily basis, calling her a “black widow” and accusing her of being involved in drug trafficking, even though there was no proof. The official investigation found no evidence to support those claims, but the damage to her reputation had already spread far beyond the actual verdict of the court.
In the UK, somewhere around 2007, disappearance of Madeleine McCann sparked public outrage, with her parents being unfairly painted as negligent or even involved in her disappearance. Despite no evidence linking them to the crime, the media’s insinuations stuck, and years later, no charges were brought. Yet, their names are still clouded by suspicion, all thanks to unchecked media rumors.
There are thousands of more such examples but the thing concerning is,
Why don’t we question that why is this happening? This happens when emotion overlaps evidence, opinion massacres facts, and when speed matters more than accuracy. The media as an institution should be accountable and informed enough of not prioritising sensation over proof. If this is done repeatedly and continues, we won’t be requiring a competent court, or lawyers or judges or any arbitrators, who are actually assigned to find the truth. The fact that the role of media is to report and not to rule must be very much clear.
Being publicly branded as a criminal without even getting a chance to go through a fair trial is unfair and unjust. Moreover, it’s traumatic. It undermines the due process of law creating an unjust environment. Branding about the false narratives and declaring who did what and how, is a practice of undermining the law, justice and assassinating an individual’s character that is very difficult to build up. This will invite future difficulties if not addressed well. The scenario when, media starts to rule and not report invites chaos, outlaws the concept of justice and generates an uncivilized jurisprudence.
Way forward? A media reform.
Without muzzling the free press, we can adopt various measures to avoid these problems, such as;
- Implementing stricter defamation and contempt-of-court laws during the pre-trial phase.
- Conducting awareness programs and workshops on ethical journalism.
- Establishing independent oversight authorities who are capable of imposing fines, and even suspending licenses for gross violations of journalistic ethics.
- Media Literacy Education is a must in today’s time. Equipping citizens, especially younger generations, with critical thinking tools to differentiate between allegations and proven facts should be done.
We must never forget that an informed citizenry is the best defense against sensationalism.
It is very easy to accuse, but very difficult to prove. That’s why competent court exists to find the truth, acquit the innocent and convict the guilty. As a torch that provides the light of democracy, the media must now reform and stick to it’s duty of reporting and not ruling.
