Media Scrutiny or Media Trial in Twisha Sharma Case? | Barkha Dutt vs Justice Sanjib Banerjee Debate

Hinzugefügt: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]I want to now bring in Justice Banerjee.

[00:00:03]There's a perception that because Giribala Singh was a former district judge, she's a powerful person, vastly connected and that when the trial court gave her anticipatory bail, even before the family was able to file an FIR, that in itself was a very questionable order. Now, Tisha's family is raising a charge and I don't know how you view it. as he said, maybe the judge knows nothing of it. Uh, but should he be clarifying it? Do you think that it's quite worrying that an accused who hasn't yet surrendered, so therefore is technically still absconding, is basically hiding in the courtroom of the principal district judge, Justice Banji.

[00:00:46]>> Well, let me start with a caveat.

[00:00:49]First is I had uh indicated on the last occasion that I'm not in favor of media trials. I congratulate you and your colleagues who brought this matter to the four. It's got the attention. Let the investigation continue. Why? Why just because of TRP or whatever else, why do you play this up so much and give so much coverage to this? You're you're, you know, not helping the case in conducting an independent kind of a trial. Secondly, when it comes to that, yes, uh there is the insinuation that the the the district judge or the retired district judge could use her influence uh to probably shield her family members or to gain some advantage somewhere. But how can you run to that uh conclusion or jump to that conclusion when you know it's very normal for uh courtrooms to be vacated and thereafter lawyers to come in everywhere even in high courts and every other court lawyers come in there they assemble sometimes they have conferences sometimes they have you know a kind of banter between themselves sometimes they come in to eat because the lack of spaces over there and if anything else it will be probably the clerks in that court or lower officials who would have given them access or who would have you know helped them in that and it's it's it's not right to jump to the conclusion that it's the judge who is involved or it's the influence of the judge which is helping that after all is also a lawyer and he he he was there with other lawyers he they could have requested the clerks who allowed them maybe in good faith maybe in bad faith But you know this is something which is very trivial and completely uh irrelevant to the main issue.

[00:02:41]>> Okay. May I uh just respond briefly? Why are we still giving it so much attention? Um while I understand where you're coming from and I have absolute respect as you know for your perspective you know I meet any number of people Justice Banerjee who say to us it's h you know you news people you'll play up a headline for a few days then you'll just leave it you never follow a case through it'll be forgotten and there is a real fear uh that powerfully connected people even in custody have influence I'm telling you just lay persons perception and therefore one reason is that the other reason is that there are some strange details that emerge every day. You know for example this picture of lawyers who in who go to a beauty parlor where this lady was last seen alive asking for CCTV footage after Giri Bala Singh has called and said I need this footage. Now all I'm saying is Justice Banerjee as a journalist I find these these details to be quite damning uh and relevant to the case and therefore we focus on them.

[00:03:52]>> May I respond just one minute >> please please?

[00:03:54]>> Uh I I don't want to advise you on how you go about your work. I I I was a journalist myself. I know.

[00:04:02]>> Uh now what I what I do not like is this kind of a panel discussion where some people some people involved in the matter itself also kind of gain publicity from this. You're getting some news. Play up that news and report it to the investigating authority. But let's not have a discussion on it as if to to break it down and you know analyze it.

[00:04:28]That's the job of the investigating authority.

[00:04:32]>> You know, I I I I don't ask you to, you know, don't drop it altogether from your news items. You know, talk about it of of the progress so that it's it's there in memory. It's also you you keep on the uh uh keep it uh keep the heat up so to say. But this discussion analysis that should not be that that's the part that investigating authority should be doing.

[00:04:57]I respect your opinion. I I I may not agree with it in its entire in its entirety, but that's all right. Uh your your point is taken and uh you know it's not the main focus of this conversation.

[00:05:09]So we will move on because I thought of something I I hadn't said before before I ask you my question. I think it also resonates with a lot of women uh who have been not able to leave abusive uh marriages who have been trapped in these relationships. the number of letters and emails we get every day just saying you know thank you you're actually speaking for all of us sometimes every few years an individual becomes a metaphor and I'm just trying to explain to you that there's a lot of sentiment u sure there may be a degree of media that is sometimes sensationalist and you're right to point that out or call it out but I think there's also a lot of deep sentiment in what people and particularly women have felt uh looking at this woman 5 months into her marriage, the way she has been spoken of, it's been really heartbreaking. So, I just I just wanted to say that. Now, to my question, um I think the the lawyer raises for the family raises one question that resonates with me. If something is botched up, which I think we all agree that things were not as they should have been in in the first sort of seven to 10 days, there's a sense of skepticism because judgments are given on the basis of evidence. Evidence has to stand up in court. So therefore, if the first few days are lost, no matter what the intent, can there be justice? I think it's a fair question for everybody to ask and I just wanted your perspective.

[00:06:41]First and foremost, madam, I completely sympathize with what the family went through and I said it to the uh the lady relative. Yes.

[00:06:53]>> Who was there on the last occasion that you know we should not have to go through that. Uh it should be much better than that. Secondly, I remind you Ajal Kasab >> was caught with machine gun firing all over and people died. Yet because we are not a banana republic, we are governed by the rule of law, a fair trial was accorded to him before he sentence was pronounced. So therefore there has to be that process has to be respected.

[00:07:28]>> Mhm. with respect and without meaning any disrespect at all. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that the way you're projecting it, you've not made up your mind as to there being a guilty in this case before the investigation?

[00:07:44]>> I I have I won't even try and be politically correct. I have made up my mind and I am convinced actually uh that there's so many things that lead me using hard facts to making up my mind. I don't think it's just intuitive bias.

[00:08:03]It's random bias. I play I I claim no neutrality. I will confess I claim zero neutrality. Zero neutrality on this issue.

[00:08:12]>> Thank you, ma'am.

[00:08:13]>> Go ahead, sir. But you know you don't have access to the entire facts. You don't have access to the entire evidence. You are not investigating it.

[00:08:24]The investigating agency will come out with everything. Even if it is 10 days, 12 days, 20 days delayed, what are the possibilities? They're supposed to take that into account. And in a case like this where the autopsy is the most important thing, the second autopsy report will give you a definitive probably answer to the you know whatever uh we are trying to find out.

[00:08:51]So I appeal to you that you know when when conducting these please also have a little little bit of sympathy or concern for the accused. It may not be. We are experienced to know sometimes that you know the most improbable sometimes happen and no one is no one is belittling no one is belittling how you know married women have to go through uh in this country how they are exposed to abusive behavior torture everything. No one no one is belittling that at all. All that we are saying is that you know the due process of law has to be respected.

[00:09:32]Yes, investigation should have been better. Those are things that you know head should have rolled. I say head should have rolled. I say it was deliberate botching up. I say it was probably interference by the persons who had no business. uh all those inferences you draw whatever the consequences but as to what really happened and as to what may happen those are matters where we should probably leave it to the investigation and thereafter the trial court and the court I I I I'll just say briefly that I'm all for due process but I cannot muster up any sympathy uh in this case for the accused I will not pretend I I pride myself on otherwise being a very a neutral host and reporter.