Whether you have been following it or not, you may know of the many details of the case surrounding the untimely death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The matter has taken over primetime news debates. What began as a death by suicide has now turned into a murder, with his girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty at the centre of the storm.
Personal text messages and conversations of all those involved have been publicised. Some messages have been “decoded” in an almost hilarious manner to fit the agenda that they are pushing. One such example is Rhea’s message ‘imma bounce’. The message that means I’m leaving has been twisted to mean that a cheque has bounced.
Financial statements, drug abuse, relationship problems and familial matters have all become fodder for public debate. The media trials have already proclaimed Rhea as the guilty party and almost all reportage has been from that angle. The Press Council of India tweeted that they were distressed at the coverage of the alleged suicide. They noted that it is “in contravention of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct framed by the PCI and issued advisory reminding the media to follow the Norms of Journalistic conduct.”
Code of conduct
Section 41 of the Norms of Journalistic conduct deals with the question of trial by media. While it recognises the importance and complementary nature of media and judiciary in upholding democracy, in the face of a trial, it gives precedence to the latter. “In a conflict between fair trial and freedom of speech, fair trial has to necessarily prevail because any compromise of fair trial for an accused will cause immense harm and defeat the justice delivery system,” it says.
The document provides a set of guidelines to ensure ethical reporting, which includes working under the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty by the Court, avoiding publication of gossip, daily reporting of the crime, giving excessive publicity to the witnesses, suspects and the accused. Identifying witnesses, disclosing confidential information that can prejudice the investigation and giving undue attention to a crime that might allow the real culprit to escape, should also be avoided, the guidelines note. However, one point in the list that really stands out in this context, says BM Jagadeesh, avocate, is, “The media reports should not induce the general public to believe in the complicity of the person indicted as such kind of action brings undue pressure on the course of fair investigation by the police.”
These guidelines are, however, not legally binding, leaving the media houses responsible for regulating themselves. “They can say that they are only reporting that she went there, or that she appeared before the media. But, the fact remains that, nobody is willing to believe today that Sushant may have committed suicide,” says Jagadeesh. He cites the example of the IAS officer DK Ravi, who had committed suicide in 2015. “Everyone went gaga about it saying it was a murder. The investigation concluded to the contrary, and what happened afterwards? No one knows, or cares,” he says.
Journalists need to hold themselves accountable for the kind of perception they create through their channel. “It is not just about what happens to Rhea Chakrabarty. If, the media concludes her guilt and tomorrow the CBI files a report, saying that it was a suicide, people will become disillusioned with the institution. Who is responsible for that?” asks Jagadeesh
Legal relief for Rhea
One can make a case against violation of privacy and against disclosing information of ongoing investigation. Rhea would be well within her rights to file an injunction to restrain media houses from publication of any information. This, however, is also the only legal option available to her, says Jagadeesh.
“One can make a case against defamation, but it will be countered with the freedom of speech. People need to understand that no freedom comes unfettered,” he says.
However, if Rhea could prove or demonstrate the impact on not just her character perception but also on the investigation, it could work in her favour. “If the publication continues to ignore the injunction, then contempt of court case can be filed,” he adds.
Sushant’s medical records and prescriptions have also been aired like dirty laundry. Kala Balasubramanian, a counselling psychologist/psychotherapist, says that there is a code of ethics that mental health professionals adhere to and this includes a confidentiality agreement between the patient and doctor. “It can only be breached under very special circumstances. One when the professional believes that the patient is a serious threat to himself or others or through a court order,” she explains.
Psychologist Neha Cadabam, says that undue breaches of confidentiality will lead to a trust deficit between patients and therapists. “This might now be an added fear for those who come into therapy. It will hinder the process of healing,” adds Kala.
She also explains that confidentiality applies only to the therapist and they cannot be held responsible if a third party with access to the information leaks it.
Mental health matters?
While the earlier narrative was “mental health matters” it soon turned into TV anchors saying that a strong and smiling man like Sushant could never be the “victim” of a mental illness.
“The idea that someone with mental health issues is a victim is unfounded. Mental illness is as common as a headache or the common cold. You would never call someone with a headache a victim would you,” asks Kala Balasubramanian, a counselling psychologist/psychotherapist.
She says that while the stigma around mental health has significantly reduced in the past decade it still exists and such narratives only make it worse.
Psychologist Neha Cadabam says that the ordeal has led to every news outlet, celebrity and lay person taking up the role of a psychologist. “Just because Sushant had all that would conventionally indicate to a successful life, it does not rule out the possibility of a suicide,” she says.
She adds that the subject of mental health and cases of suicides must be handled very sensitively by the media. “The media should ensure that they are not labelling, diagnosing anyone,” she concludes.