For decades, the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ has formed the foundation of justice systems all around the world, including Nepal. It ensures that every accused has the right to fair trial and is not convicted without sufficient evidence. However, in recent years, the legal tenet of ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ has been under intense attack, particularly in light of Nepal’s changing media scene. Traditionally, this notion has served as a foundation of justice, ensuring that individuals are not unfairly punished without due process. However, the development of media trials, social media conjecture, and sensationalist journalism has resulted in a troubling trend: the presumption of guilt unless proven innocent.
Media trials have become a common occurrence in Nepal, where high-profile cases are frequently subjected to severe scrutiny by news organizations. These trials often take on a life of their own, overshadowing the real judicial proceedings. Before the court could rule, media outlets bombarded the airwaves with sensationalized tales of the purported crime, leading to a widespread sense of guilt. The hurry to disseminate details frequently resulted in misrepresentations and mistakes, essentially damaging the assumption of innocence, which should accompany any criminal charge.
For instance, the case of Nirmala Pant, a teenager whose rape and murder in 2018 shook the nation, saw extensive media coverage. While the public’s demand for justice was justified, the media’s relentless focus on certain suspects without conclusive evidence led to a trial by the media. Innocent individuals were harassed and their reputations tarnished irreparably.
Social media platforms have added to the complexity of Nepal’s justice system. The speed and scope of these platforms allow rumors and speculation to spread unchecked. For example; the infamous case of an alleged sexual assault on a senior player in Nepali cricket soon sparked a social media frenzy, with hashtags rising in support of victims and cries for punishment. However, in the middle of the outcry, the accused was publicly vilified, despite the fact that the court procedure was still ongoing.
The immediacy of social media often fosters a mob mentality, in which people cast judgement without fully understanding the situation. This phenomenon not only influences public opinion but it can also put pressure on law enforcement and judicial organizations to take actions that jeopardize the integrity of investigations. The instance of comedian Apurva Singh is an appropriate example. In 2022, Singh was accused of making indecent remarks during a stand-up performance. The outcry on social media was fast and intense, with many people demanding his arrest and punishment without a formal investigation. The court of popular opinion had already found him guilty, demonstrating the power of social media in shaping views of guilt.
Such journalism not only misleads the public but it also fosters a climate of fear and mistrust with individuals being condemned based on insufficient or biased data. This raises crucial considerations regarding the media’s role in protecting justice and fairness. One significant case in our country was the 2015 earthquake relief scandal. Several people and organizations were accused of misappropriating donations intended for earthquake victims. The media's sensationalist coverage sparked widespread outrage and condemnation, despite the fact that many of the accused were eventually proven innocent. The damage to their reputations and livelihoods, however, had already occurred.
The ramifications of this transformation are substantial. The presumption of innocence is more than just a legal nicety; it is a basic human right. Individuals who are considered guilty face serious consequences, including social isolation, loss of work and even threats to their safety. This was clear in the case of a young Nepalese student who was accused of theft. Despite the absence of evidence, his name and face were widely circulated on multiple media platforms, creating a hostile environment that drove him to flee his hometown.
Socially, the weakening of the presumption of innocence produces a culture of dread and suspicion. Individuals may become reluctant to speak out or engage in public discourse, fearing that any accusation, regardless of its veracity, could lead to their social and professional ostracization. This culture of fear can stifle free speech and hinder the healthy functioning of a democratic society.
Furthermore, the legal system itself may suffer long-term consequences as a result of this erosion of rights. Judges may be under pressure to render decisions that reflect popular opinion rather than an unbiased evaluation of the facts when public opinion is strongly against the accused. The impartiality necessary for a fair trial is put in danger by these phenomena.
For decades, the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ has formed the foundation of justice systems all around the world, including Nepal. It ensures that every accused has the right to fair trial and is not convicted without sufficient evidence. However, in recent years, the legal tenet of ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ has been under intense attack, particularly in light of Nepal’s changing media scene. Traditionally, this notion has served as a foundation of justice, ensuring that individuals are not unfairly punished without due process. However, the development of media trials, social media conjecture, and sensationalist journalism has resulted in a troubling trend: the presumption of guilt unless proven innocent.
Media trials have become a common occurrence in Nepal, where high-profile cases are frequently subjected to severe scrutiny by news organizations. These trials often take on a life of their own, overshadowing the real judicial proceedings. Before the court could rule, media outlets bombarded the airwaves with sensationalized tales of the purported crime, leading to a widespread sense of guilt. The hurry to disseminate details frequently resulted in misrepresentations and mistakes, essentially damaging the assumption of innocence, which should accompany any criminal charge.
For instance, the case of Nirmala Pant, a teenager whose rape and murder in 2018 shook the nation, saw extensive media coverage. While the public’s demand for justice was justified, the media’s relentless focus on certain suspects without conclusive evidence led to a trial by the media. Innocent individuals were harassed and their reputations tarnished irreparably.
Social media platforms have added to the complexity of Nepal’s justice system. The speed and scope of these platforms allow rumors and speculation to spread unchecked. For example; the infamous case of an alleged sexual assault on a senior player in Nepali cricket soon sparked a social media frenzy, with hashtags rising in support of victims and cries for punishment. However, in the middle of the outcry, the accused was publicly vilified, despite the fact that the court procedure was still ongoing.
The immediacy of social media often fosters a mob mentality, in which people cast judgement without fully understanding the situation. This phenomenon not only influences public opinion but it can also put pressure on law enforcement and judicial organizations to take actions that jeopardize the integrity of investigations. The instance of comedian Apurva Singh is an appropriate example. In 2022, Singh was accused of making indecent remarks during a stand-up performance. The outcry on social media was fast and intense, with many people demanding his arrest and punishment without a formal investigation. The court of popular opinion had already found him guilty, demonstrating the power of social media in shaping views of guilt.
Such journalism not only misleads the public but it also fosters a climate of fear and mistrust with individuals being condemned based on insufficient or biased data. This raises crucial considerations regarding the media’s role in protecting justice and fairness. One significant case in our country was the 2015 earthquake relief scandal. Several people and organizations were accused of misappropriating donations intended for earthquake victims. The media's sensationalist coverage sparked widespread outrage and condemnation, despite the fact that many of the accused were eventually proven innocent. The damage to their reputations and livelihoods, however, had already occurred.
The ramifications of this transformation are substantial. The presumption of innocence is more than just a legal nicety; it is a basic human right. Individuals who are considered guilty face serious consequences, including social isolation, loss of work and even threats to their safety. This was clear in the case of a young Nepalese student who was accused of theft. Despite the absence of evidence, his name and face were widely circulated on multiple media platforms, creating a hostile environment that drove him to flee his hometown.
Socially, the weakening of the presumption of innocence produces a culture of dread and suspicion. Individuals may become reluctant to speak out or engage in public discourse, fearing that any accusation, regardless of its veracity, could lead to their social and professional ostracization. This culture of fear can stifle free speech and hinder the healthy functioning of a democratic society.
Furthermore, the legal system itself may suffer long-term consequences as a result of this erosion of rights. Judges may be under pressure to render decisions that reflect popular opinion rather than an unbiased evaluation of the facts when public opinion is strongly against the accused. The impartiality necessary for a fair trial is put in danger by these phenomena.
Raj Pandey
Final year, BA LLB
Kathmandu School of Law
