Justice Oka slams live-tweeting from courts, warning that judges’ oral remarks are wrongly projected as final verdicts, creating public confusion and misinterpretation of judicial proceedings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: At the launch of the book [In] Complete Justice? The Supreme Court at 75, former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka, and former Orissa High Court Chief Justice S. Muralidhar raised critical concerns about media reportage of court proceedings, press freedom, and the growing performative nature of modern-day courtrooms.
Justice Oka on Misrepresentation of Courtroom Remarks:
Justice Abhay Oka cautioned against the risks of live reporting, especially live-tweeting from courtrooms. He explained that judges often make strong prima facie remarks during hearings to test lawyers and elicit their best arguments. However, such remarks are frequently projected by the media as final decisions, misleading the public.
“Personally speaking, I developed the art of ignoring what media says. But due to live-tweeting, what happens is that what the judge has said is projected as a final decision. A few days later, when the judgment comes the other way, it creates confusion,”
he said.
He cited the Supreme Court’s 2015 NJAC verdict as an example. Despite being nearly a thousand pages long, television channels began analysing the decision within minutes of its release.
“How could you read a 1,000-page judgment within 10 minutes?”
he asked, pointing out the superficial nature of such coverage.
Justice Muralidhar on Courts as ‘Theatres of Performance’:
Justice S. Muralidhar offered a reflection on the evolving dynamics of Indian courtrooms. According to him, courts today have acquired a performative element where both lawyers and judges sometimes play to the gallery.
“Courts are theatres of performance. Lawyers and sometimes judges are aware of it and they are performing for the gallery,”
he remarked.
He further warned that viral clips of sharp judicial comments or rebukes, though inevitable in a democracy, can distort public perception if sensationalised without context.
Press Freedom and the Problem of ‘Trials by Media’:
The discussion, moderated by Manisha Pande, Managing Editor of Newslaundry, also delved into the question of whether India has done enough to safeguard press freedom. Justice Muralidhar was unequivocal in his response
“That’s a no brainer, because we’ve not done enough.”
He pointed out the paradox of the press being both victim and perpetrator. While independent outlets face FIRs, defamation suits, and even UAPA charges for reporting, sections of the media simultaneously adopt a prosecutorial stance, running “trials by media.” Smaller independent platforms often end up exhausting resources in prolonged legal battles.
Copyright, Satire, and Memes as New-Age Cartoons:
The panel also discussed the increasing use of copyright laws to suppress dissent. Manisha Pande cited an example where a satirical outlet was pulled up for using television clips in memes.
“It was a satire. It was a meme. I think memes are the new cartoons,”
she argued, urging courts to adapt to evolving forms of critique.
Prof. Gopal Guru on Political Economy of Media:
Adding a structural perspective, Professor Gopal Guru highlighted how the media’s political economy influences its functioning. He noted that during the framing of the Constitution, advertisements were not considered an integral part of free speech. However, today, market-driven journalism blurs this line, impacting press independence.
He also offered a reflective comment on judicial temperament,
“Anger of the judge is well taken when it is accompanied by uncompromising vigilance about justice. Is it the case?”
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Justice Abhay Oka
