Editorial: SSR case: CBI's closure report and grey areas

The reported filing of closure report by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the controversial case of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death highlights the grey areas in criminal investigations and “media trials”. It is difficult to find credible explanations as to why investigations drag on for years; it was five long years in this case.

Secondly, while media scrutiny and oversight of cases of public interest are important, the SSR case underlines the need for drawing a line exercising restraint and not giving in to the temptation of sensationalism, often driven by extraneous considerations. Clearly, in this case, the media did not cover itself in glory.

The 35-year-old actor was found dead in his Mumbai apartment on June 14, 2020 and police investigation would have involved questioning of his girlfriend Rhea Chakraborty, also an actor.

However, what initially seemed like a death by suicide was soon caught in a swirling whirlpool of allegations, many bordering on conspiracy theories. The Enforcement Directorate and the Narcotics Bureau too got into the act. In hindsight, one could argue that investigations had spun out of control.

The Supreme Court handed over the investigation to the CBI.

Two unseemly developments muddied the waters. One, the frenzy unleashed by media, especially television media, and two, the social media campaign for justice which soon degenerated into vicious trolling and peddling of wild conspiracy theories. So much so that a wild goose chase became inexorable, despite credible forensic inputs by AIIMS to the contrary. Further complicating an already complex situation was the suspicion that political vested interests were at play, fishing in the troubled waters.

There are lessons to be learned from this case. The television coverage leaves much to be desired. It degenerated into witch-hunting as wild conspiracy theories were either spouted or were given a platform. Instead of following the core journalism principles of objective, balanced and fair reporting, the media came to be accused of unprofessional and unethical practices. The media needs to introspect and in future never cross the line between the watchdog role and the hunting dog role. Trial by media is problematic in most cases and needs to be distinguished from legitimate and bona fide reporting of ongoing investigations to highlight any potential derailment of justice. Instead of exposing vested interests, the media should not become a tool of vested interests.

The role of social media needs to be studied too. The “Justice for SSR” campaign on social media platforms had the markings of a cult. The media reported the role of murky forces and persons of questionable motives in orchestrating the campaign. The social media platforms are yet to find ways to prevent its misuse by vested interests. Finding the right balance between preventing misuse and complying with freedom of expression continues to be a daunting challenge.

Lastly, only a swift and impartial investigation can ensure the administration of justice. The credibility of the investigations and the judiciary rests on it. Prolonged delays cast shadows of doubt on the integrity of professional institutions. Also, the pillars of the state should strive for an impeccable record in doing their duty in a professional way and with unquestionable and unimpeachable integrity. Only that will protect their independence and insulate them from public outrage, especially in extensively reported, high-profile and controversial cases.

In the end, justice needs to be done, but in the process, there should not be any avoidable collateral damage to people’s lives and reputations.