The Supreme Court of India warned that police instantly uploading mobile videos to social media can undermine impartial investigations. It stressed such practices pose a serious threat to fair trials by shaping public perception before evidence is tested.
The Supreme Court voiced concern about the growing habit of instantly uploading mobile phone videos to social media, saying such practices pose a serious threat to fair trials.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi made the remark on Friday while hearing a PIL alleging that police-uploaded videos and photographs of accused persons on social media create public bias.
The petition noted that the court had previously directed states to establish guidelines for police media briefings, and argued those rules should also cover social media posts.
The bench advised petitioner Hemendra Patel to await the outcome of the guidelines and agreed with senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Patel, that “every person nowadays with a mobile phone has become media.”
Sankaranarayanan highlighted recent instances where police posted images of accused persons handcuffed, tied with ropes, paraded, or forced to kneel on social media acts that, beyond violating personal dignity, contribute to public prejudice.
Justice Bagchi suggested that, rather than focusing solely on police who have been given three months to draft a standard operating procedure for media briefings the petitioner should seek a comprehensive mechanism covering the police, traditional media, and social media.
The judge emphasized the court’s broader view that police briefings should not cultivate bias against the accused.
Justice Bagchi remarked,
“Police can be restrained through the SOP. But what about the media, especially social media, and the public? Can they be restrained? Comparatively, TV channels are much more restrained, even though one might disagree with their views,”
He noted that the issue might demand wider consideration than what the petition currently raises.
The judge said,
“We understand that police briefings to the media must be responsible and reasonable, and must not be exposed to bias, because in a criminal justice system, the investigating agency is neither pro-victim nor pro-accused.”
Sankaranarayanan recalled that the Supreme Court first addressed “media trial” in the Sahara v. SEBI judgment of 2012.
Justice Bagchi expressed concern that police authorities may get carried away during briefings, and warned of the growing risk of media trials in ongoing criminal matters.
He said,
“It is the duty of the investigating agency to conduct an independent investigation to unravel the truth. To ensure that a balance is maintained, the manual is a very positive step. The manual will restrain the police from making over-enthusiastic statements which may be inferable with regard to matters that are subject to adjudication in a forensic and dispassionate manner.”
He added,
“However, what happens when such an exercise, though restraining the police, is not able to remove the cloud or the vitiated atmosphere created through third-party indulgence, where sections of the media go on spinning narratives either way, resulting in a media trial that completely subverts the rule of law,”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta warned of social-media tabloids that behave like “blackmailers,” adding,
“There are some platforms which exist only virtually, which are blackmailers. Blackmailing is an understatement.”
Justice Bagchi described the issue as “the atomised social media.”
CJI Kant likened it to “a different facet of digital arrest,” observing a tendency outside the national capital for people to flaunt credentials as media persons and display them on vehicles for ulterior motives. Sankaranarayanan noted that some advocates even affix ‘Supreme Court Advocate’ stickers to their cars to evade highway tolls.
Because the fair-trial concerns require a comprehensive approach, the bench proposed that the petition be withdrawn and refiled with a broader scope after April, once the police guidelines or SOP are implemented.
Following the court’s suggestion, Sankaranarayanan agreed to withdraw the petition.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
