can justice be fought only after media intervention?

Answer 1

When politicians do not listen to public opinion, which is most of the time apart from election year, then the media serve a useful purpose by putting pressure on them.
We would not have heard about the intention to impose a road mileage charge (a 'trial' and 'experimental' of course) if the media had not brought it to our attention, and then 1.8 million people signed a petition against it.
The government MAY be embarrassed by this, and drop the idea. But I doubt it.
And there was a prog. on TV called Rough Justice, which dealt with closed cases, lost on appeal. It caused many cases to be re-opened, and some rulings overturned. These are people serving life sentences who may not be guilty.
In general, I do not believe in trial by press. But there are times when it is the only answer to deaf politicians.

Answer 2

You have a point. But it is not the "only" intervention... It is true that Jessica case judgement was so powerfully criticised in the media by experts / news correspondents / public that the court took serious note of the consequences and resorted to a reexamination...

The case of commercial houses in Delhi was however solely adjudged on its merits by the courts... to the extent of provoking an otherwise insensitive govt ... only to have the dubious intentions of the politicians and officials exposed to the public..!

When rulers are unashamedly selfish, officials blatantly partisan, public alarmingly apathetic about their own future, the media do serve some useful role in exposing the lapses in adminstration (including judicial processes) and thus their role can not be played down...

Amidst the craze for reaching tinsels and trivials by the public which the media likes to satisfy for its commercial advantage, the investigative roles are also continued by many media houses that needs to be appreciated...

But they are not the only hope, some NGOs and PIL specialists also play some role.. But when the judiciary itself takes congnizance of some issues it gives the greatest hope for the common man...

Justice delivery is only a tool that must be used by the various institutions - the police, enforcing executives, etc - properly and the system of justice can not be blamed for its inability to deliver the justice in the face of half hearted efforts of the user institutions to put all the right evidences before it.

Answer 3

Not at all... Media if gives the correct picture of any dispute the public opinion will be created to fight for justice effectively. But the Media has to search itself whether they are true to themselves?. Ofcourse when media maintains its judicious presentation of the events the people get more stength to fight
for Justice... as in the Jessica case. Similarly even when the media reports are justified Justice delayed is as good as justice
denied as in the case of Parliament attack by terrorists.

Answer 4

Your thinking may be right. Many of us know that the procedure of getting justice in India is always doubtful. If you are personally keen to get some justice from competent court of law in India, sometimes you may think what your question is. The main problem is to rectify law system in India.

Answer 5

Not alway, but sometime media really play a crucial role, Like in case of Jesika Lal, Priyadarsini Mattoo cases
etc.

Answer 6

No--the media is not a good source for the right info....they have their own agendas.

Answer 7

I dont think so , is you are correct and have the witnesses you dont require media for prooving yourself correct !!!!!

Answer 8

YUP ITS THE ONLY WAY