Chakraborty spent 27 days in prison during the overwhelming backlash following Rajput's death on June 14, 2020. She faced extreme public vilification and media trials that painted her as the sole villain in a deeply tragic scenario. Senior lawyer Satish Maneshinde, who defended her, criticized the "false narrative" spread by media, calling for accountability and reflection among media leaders. Feminist lawyer Payal Chawla remarked on the troubling misogyny displayed during the coverage, showcasing how societal judgments can lead to harmful repercussions for women.
Since the CBI’s findings, which have been submitted to a special court in Mumbai, Chakraborty has remained largely silent. The family of Rajput has not made any comment regarding the updates in the case. Rhea, alongside her family, continues to navigate the emotional and professional scars left by the tumultuous period, with indications of moving toward personal and professional growth through new ventures.
The aftermath of the media frenzy highlights the dangers of sensational reporting and societal scapegoating, particularly towards women. Several public figures have now expressed a need for media outlets to apologize to Chakraborty for their roles in her character assassination, exemplifying the larger issues regarding public memory, accountability, and justice in the age of rapid information sharing. As Chakraborty considers her future, the potential for legal repercussions against her accusers looms, yet navigating this path within India’s judicial system presents its own set of challenges.
Ultimately, this case serves as a stark reminder of the media's powerful role in shaping narratives and the severe consequences that can unfold when justice is influenced by public opinion rather than factual evidence.
Since the CBI’s findings, which have been submitted to a special court in Mumbai, Chakraborty has remained largely silent. The family of Rajput has not made any comment regarding the updates in the case. Rhea, alongside her family, continues to navigate the emotional and professional scars left by the tumultuous period, with indications of moving toward personal and professional growth through new ventures.
The aftermath of the media frenzy highlights the dangers of sensational reporting and societal scapegoating, particularly towards women. Several public figures have now expressed a need for media outlets to apologize to Chakraborty for their roles in her character assassination, exemplifying the larger issues regarding public memory, accountability, and justice in the age of rapid information sharing. As Chakraborty considers her future, the potential for legal repercussions against her accusers looms, yet navigating this path within India’s judicial system presents its own set of challenges.
Ultimately, this case serves as a stark reminder of the media's powerful role in shaping narratives and the severe consequences that can unfold when justice is influenced by public opinion rather than factual evidence.
