To understand the antagonism of free trial and free media one needs to contemplate the developments of court and media and its present situation. There exists a typical connection between the Judiciary and the media and both assume an admiring share to each other where man is the principal point of their universe. Both the judiciary and media are employed with the same obligation; to find reality, to maintain the democratic based esteems and to manage social, political and financial issues. Media has been described by many as the "eyes and ears of the general public". Media intervention in under trial cases has turned out to be exceptionally typical in the general public. Judges are somehow constrained in some way or another to take choice as indicated by the follow up of Media feedback because of which, an assertion of a decision by media turns into the last decision in trial courts particularly in numerous high profile cases. Revived as an open court, media independently begins investigation and form the general supposition in the minds of the general public. It is obvious that to run the democratic form of governance easily and smoothly, a free and sound media functionary is required. But if we critically analyse the provisions enshrined under sub-clause 2, article 19 of the Constitution of India. We could see that the freedom of expression enjoyed by the media fraternity is usually taken to mean in a much more advanced way. That is to say that this freedom of expression by the media is not an absolute one and it could be said that it doesn't promote the flexibility to commit contempt of court. This paper is a modest push to discover the need and extent of media inclusion in the cases which are subjudice before the courts of Law and assuming a significant part thereto in setting up the fairness and justice in the general public.