Media trial: what the Sushant Singh Rajput case taught India about TV news

For several months in 2020, the investigation into the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput dominated Indian television news. Prime-time debates, hashtags and leaked documents turned a personal tragedy into a national spectacle. The coverage later became the subject of court judgments and regulatory action, and it remains a case study in how — and how not — to report on an ongoing investigation.

How the story grew

Rajput’s death in June 2020 came during the Covid-19 lockdown, when television audiences were large and other news was grim. Over the following weeks the story widened: a police complaint in Bihar, a dispute between two states over jurisdiction, a CBI investigation, a money-laundering inquiry and a separate drugs case. Each development was covered live, often with speculation that went well beyond the facts available.

Several channels broadcast private messages, medical details and allegations against individuals before investigators had reached any conclusions. People connected to the actor, including his partner Rhea Chakraborty, were the subject of intense on-screen debate and social-media campaigns.

What the courts said

In September 2020, the Bombay High Court urged the media to show restraint while the investigation was continuing.

In January 2021 a bench of the Bombay High Court, headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, delivered a detailed judgment on petitions about the coverage. The court said that some reporting by two news channels was, on the face of it, contemptuous, because it amounted to conducting a parallel investigation and pronouncing guilt, but it chose not to begin contempt proceedings. It also:

• warned the media against reports and debates that could prejudice an investigation or harm the rights of accused persons and witnesses;
• said that, until Parliament made a law, the media should follow the Press Council of India’s guidelines on reporting suicide;
• held that the dignity of a person, protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, continues after death and must be respected.

What regulators and the police said

In October 2020, the News Broadcasting Standards Authority, the industry’s self-regulatory body, ordered several channels to air apologies for insensitive coverage of the case. The Mumbai Police also said it had identified tens of thousands of fake social-media accounts that had been used to spread misinformation about the investigation.

Why it matters

The case highlighted several problems that continue to affect news coverage in India:

• Speculation presented as fact. Theories that later investigations did not support were broadcast as certainties.
• Trial by media. Individuals were effectively declared guilty on air before any court had heard evidence. In this case, the CBI’s closure report in 2025 found no evidence to support the allegations of foul play.
• Insensitivity towards grief. Details of the actor’s death and private life were repeated endlessly, causing distress to his family and fans.
• Harm to mental-health awareness. Experts warned that sensational coverage of suicide can harm vulnerable viewers.

Lessons for responsible reporting

Good practice, as set out by the Press Council of India and international guidelines, includes:

1. Reporting what investigators and courts have actually said, and clearly separating allegations from established facts.
2. Avoiding details of methods of self-harm and avoiding sensational headlines.
3. Respecting the privacy and dignity of the deceased and their families.
4. Including information about where people can find help.

At TrackFame we follow these principles in our Sushant Singh Rajput profile and articles, as set out in our editorial policy. If you or someone you know is struggling, please see our article on mental health and the helplines listed there.