The rise of social media has enabled judges to engage with the public, enhancing transparency but raising concerns about impartiality and ethics. This shift influences legal proceedings, public perception, and judicial roles. This blog examines the impact of judges’ social media presence on the judiciary and its evolving role in the digital era.
“While a judge is required to maintain a form of life and conduct more severe and restricted
than that of other people, it would be unreasonable to expect him or her to retreat from public
life altogether into a wholly private life centred on home, family and friends. The complete
isolation of a judge from the community in which the judge lives is neither possible nor
beneficial” (Commentary, paragraph 31).
The use of social media by certain judges has created a platform for public discussions on court proceedings, thereby impacting the role of judges.
The widespread adoption of communication technologies has significantly enhanced convenience in human life. In the past, available communication methods were cumbersome and inefficient. However, with the integration of technology into modern society, communication has become faster and more effective. The internet’s widespread accessibility has made it incredibly easy to obtain information and connect with people across the globe, leading to the metaphorical comparison of the world to a small town. Social media, in particular, serves as a crucial medium for fostering connections between individuals.
WHAT IS SOCIAL MEDIA
Social media encompasses computer-based technology that allows individuals to share ideas, opinions, and information across various virtual platforms. It provides users with an internet-based space to instantly exchange different types of content, including personal details, documents, videos, and images.
“A judge, like any other citizen, is entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and
assembly, but in exercising such rights, a judge shall always conduct himself or herself in such
a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary” (Bangalore Principle 4.6)
As of October 2021, approximately 4.5 billion people utilize social media platforms. This digital evolution has transformed societal thinking, making social media a powerful tool for spreading both truth and misinformation. As social media continues to influence various aspects of life, the judiciary is no exception.
As the third organ of government, the judiciary must remain free from any influence exerted by the other two branches or the public at large. This principle is normative, as it defines the standard that courts and judges should uphold. Judicial independence is essential to safeguarding the general public from unjust treatment.
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
The concept of judicial independence traces its origins to England’s Act of Settlement. In a diverse country like India, ensuring an independent judiciary is particularly crucial for maintaining justice and fairness.
- Security of tenure (Article 124(2))
- Salary and allowances
- Power to punish for contempt (Article 129 for the Supreme Court, Article 215 for High Courts)
- Separation of judiciary from the executive (Article 50)
- Restriction on post-retirement practice
With great judicial authority comes significant responsibility. The Indian judiciary laid down several guiding principles during the Chief Justices’ Conference in 1999, which were subsequently endorsed by all High Courts. It is not only essential that justice is served, but also that it is visibly seen to be served. Judges of higher courts must consistently uphold and reinforce public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality.
Considering this, every Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, whether in an official or personal capacity, must ensure that their actions do not undermine trust in the Indian legal system. A judge must also refrain from allowing any immediate family member, who is a practicing lawyer, to appear before them or be involved in any case under their adjudication.
The gifts or hospitality only from close family members, relatives, and friends. Additionally, a judge must refrain from engaging in any form of commerce or business, whether directly or indirectly, except for activities such as publishing legal opinions or pursuing hobbies, which do not constitute trade or business.
Furthermore, a judge is prohibited from making donations or fundraising for any purpose. They should not seek any additional financial benefits arising from their position unless such benefits are explicitly permissible. In cases of uncertainty, the matter should be referred to and clarified by the Chief Justice. Judges must always remain conscious of being under constant public scrutiny and should conduct themselves in a manner that upholds the dignity and reputation of the judiciary.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, 2002, were established to set ethical standards for judges. These guidelines serve as a framework for judicial behavior, providing direction to judges and regulating their conduct. Their primary objective is to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary while encouraging support from both the executive and legislative branches, as well as the general public, for India’s judicial system.
Media Trials
Social media has increasingly become a platform that prioritizes generating TRP over presenting factual information. Lengthy debates and discussions often revolve around speculation rather than truth, posing a threat to the rights of both witnesses and the accused.
The right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) has frequently been misused in this context. In India, criminal jurisprudence is based on the fundamental principle that an accused person cannot be deemed guilty unless their guilt is proven in a court of law.
However, social media often disseminates opinions about both victims and accused individuals, which may not always be accurate or factual.
The media frequently disregards the “Guilty beyond reasonable doubt” and “Innocent until proven guilty” principles that form the foundation of Indian judicial proceedings. This places additional pressure on trial courts, which are responsible for ensuring that prejudiced media coverage does not influence legal outcomes.
Persistent commentary and speculation from social media platforms can potentially sway judicial decisions, creating a risk that courts may be pressured into delivering verdicts influenced by public opinion rather than legal merit.
1. Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India
The landmark Public Interest Litigation (PIL) case, Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India, was the first instance where an Indian court laid down specific guidelines for media reporting on legal proceedings. The court established the following directives:
- The privacy and dignity of the victim must be respected at all times.
- Sensitive case-related information must not be made public.
- Confessions or admissions made before an investigating officer cannot be published.
- Interviews of individuals connected to a sub-judice matter should not be conducted.
The court also emphasized that news reports must be factually accurate, free from exaggeration or bias, and must not be manipulated to create unnecessary sensationalism for increased viewership. By adhering to these principles, the media can fulfill its role responsibly without compromising judicial fairness or the fundamental rights of the accused.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Next in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that while discussing or advocating a cause—even if it is controversial—is permissible, it must not be allowed to operate without restraint. The Court suggested that excessive and unregulated media trials should be subject to legal oversight.
Essentially, the ruling implied that media coverage remains justified, both legally and ethically, as long as it facilitates a fair investigation and trial. However, when such coverage crosses ethical boundaries, prioritizing sensationalism and commercial gain over justice, it must be curtailed through appropriate legal measures.
3. Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India (2021)
The landmark Public Interest Litigation case, Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India (2021) , marked the first instance where a court laid down guidelines for media publications and networks on reporting legal proceedings.
The Court established several key directives, including:
- Ensuring that the privacy and dignity of the victim are upheld at all times.
- Prohibiting the disclosure of sensitive case-related information.
- Restricting the publication of confessions or admissions made before an investigator.
- Barring interviews of individuals connected to the case while the matter is sub-judice.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that the media must report news in an accurate and truthful manner, presenting events as they occurred without distortion, exaggeration, or bias. It also cautioned against sensationalizing incidents merely to attract viewership.
Impact of Social Media
Judges, like any other citizens, have the freedom to use social media, but their active participation must be approached with caution, considering the nature of their profession. While social media can enhance connections and transparency in society, any posts made by judges are vulnerable to misinterpretation or distortion. These interactions can lead to cyberbullying and threats to personal safety and privacy.
In 2011, the International Bar Association Legal Policy and Research Unit (IBA LPRU) conducted a global study to assess the impact of Online Social Networking (OSN) on the legal profession. The findings revealed that judges’ use of social media raised specific concerns, with 40% of respondents believing it undermined public trust in the justice system and compromised judicial independence.
Although people have access to judges’ words, many lack the legal expertise to fully comprehend the deeper meaning of judicial reasoning.
Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has expressed support for judges using social media, advocating for its role in sharing ideas, opinions, and information. However, judges must exercise caution in their online presence to avoid influencing public opinion prematurely, particularly in a climate where media trials are becoming increasingly prevalent. It is crucial that judges remain mindful of how they present themselves on these platforms.
JUSTICE SPEAKS IN COURT, NOT IN CLICKS!
READ MORE REPORTS ON MEDIA TRIALS
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
