Taking exception to the media interviewing witnesses and commenting on cases during trial, the Law Commission has recommended changes in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the proper conduct of trial.

The Commission, in its latest report titled Trial by Media, has also emphasised the need to sensitise journalists through proper training in certain aspects of the law.

'What is going on in the media may indeed be highly objectionable. Merely because it is tolerated by the courts, it may not cease to be contempt,' the Commission noted in the report.

The Commission, headed by Justice M Jagannadha Rao, said: 'In our country the lack of knowledge of law of contempt currently shows that there is extensive coverage of interviews with witnesses.'

'This is highly objectionable even under the current law of contempt if such interviews are conducted after the chargesheet is filed,' the panel said.

'We are of the view that there is considerable interference with the due administration of criminal justice and this will have to be remedied by Parliament,' the report said.

Terming direct or indirect comments on the merits of a case as 'an extreme form of trial by the newspaper,' the Commission observed that in such cases the newspaper usurps the function of a court by depriving the safeguards of procedure and the right to cross-examine.

The Commission also observed that the very procedure of parading the accused for identification by witnesses is rendered useless after their photographs are published or broadcast by the media.

'Publishing photographs may hinder proper identification in an identification parade. There are various other aspects such as judging the guilt or innocence of the accused or discrediting witnesses which could be contempt,' the Commission cautioned.

It also disapproved of the 'recent phenomenon of media interviewing the potential witnesses and the publicity that is given by the police.'

However, the Commission said some 'bare facts' may be mentioned to satisfy public curiosity, even if charges are pending in court. 'But (an) in-depth interview with witnesses can create problems,' it said.

The Commission took special note of the impact of television interviews and cited the observation of the Phillimore Committee to contend that such interviews have the 'danger of dramatic impact' on the mind of the court.

'The grilling on television of a person involved in a case can seem to take the form of cross-examining in court. It could obviously create the risk of affecting or distorting the evidence he might give at the trial. Such interview can be regarded as trial by television,' it said.

Taking a dim view of the quality of coverage of courts and crime by the media, the Commission also recommended legal training for reporters.

They need to be trained in certain aspects of laws related to freedom of speech, human rights, law of defamation and contempt, it said.

'These subjects should be included in the syllabus for journalism and special diploma or degree courses on journalism and law should be started,' it said.

Many accused in high profile cases -- like the BMW [Images] case, Uphaar tragedy and Jessica Lal murder case -- have often complained and even petitioned courts that they had become attractive targets of the media, which has been 'interfering in the administration of justice' through the unbridled coverage of their cases.

The channels and newspapers, on the other hand, have claimed they were 'bringing justice' to victims by maintaining pressure in cases involving accused with money and power.