Today we are living in a digital age, where social media has become a regular part of everyday life. Almost, everything that public authorities or public figures do is recorded, shared, and discussed online. People not only watch what is happening, but they also give their opinions and share those opinions with others. This ability of citizens to express differing opinions reflects the strength of a democracy in the country. Public criticism on social media has sometimes forced authorities to rethink their decisions or change the way they function.
However, the same digital space that promotes accountability has also created problems.
In recent years, the judiciary has also entered this digital space. After the Covid-19 pandemic, institutions across the country adopted technology more actively. Courts also began their functioning in online mode. Judgments and Orders became easily accessible on websites. Most importantly, proceedings of important constitutional cases of the Supreme Court began to be live-streamed and many High Courts also began to live-stream their proceedings on the daily basis. The purpose of live streaming was simple: to increase transparency and allow ordinary citizens to understand how courts work.
The intention was positive. It was meant to educate the public and build trust in the system. But the reality has become more complicated.
Today, small clips from the court proceedings are cut and uploaded on platforms like YouTube, Instagram and on other various social media platforms. These clips are often only a few seconds long. They are shared without explaining the full discussion taking place in the courtroom. For example, if a judge appears strict or expresses frustration during arguments, that short moment is recorded and circulated widely. Similarly, if an advocate struggles to answer a difficult question, that clip is recorded and shared.
People who watch such videos may not understand that intense questioning is a normal part of court proceedings. Judges often ask tough questions to test arguments. Lawyers may need time to respond because legal issues are complex. But when these moments are shown without context, they can create a false impression about how the judiciary functions.
Over time, this can affect public trust. Not because the courts are acting improperly, but because the information reaching people is incomplete.
A related concern is the role of non-legal social media pages. Many of these pages have large numbers of followers. They post about court cases and judicial remarks. However, they often take one line from a judge's observation and post it without explaining the facts of the case or the legal issue being discussed.
A recent example is the circulation of remarks made by Justice B.V. Nagarathna regarding “physical relationship” during a hearing. Observation made by the judge from the proceedings was widely shared on social media. Many people reacted strongly to it. However, most of these reactions were based on incomplete information. The full context of the case and the nature of the legal question were not properly explained.
This is not the first time such backlash has happened. In recent years, repeated instances of such backlash have raised doubts about judicial functioning, which is not a healthy development. Often, the difference between a question asked by the judge and a final decision given by the court is not understood. An oral remark made during arguments is treated as if it were the final judgment.
Another equal important issue is how court judgments are shared on social media. Many pages pick one small part of a judgment which appears controversial when read alone. They post only that line or paragraph without explaining the full facts of the case or the reasoning given by the court.
When such excerpts are shared without context, they can create a wrong impression about the judgment. People who read only that small portion may feel angry or shocked. They began to criticise the judiciary and the judges without knowing the complete background. This situation fits well with the saying that “incomplete knowledge may, at times, be more harmful than no knowledge at all,” because when people form opinions without reading the full judgment, their understanding is based on half information.
This problem is seen very often in cases related to sexual offences and matrimonial disputes. These cases already involve sensitive issues, so even a single line taken out of context can easily create public outrage. A recent example is the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, where certain parts of the decision were widely circulated online without proper explanation. As a result, many reactions were based not on the full reasoning of the court, but on isolated extracts.
The steady increase in such kind of activity is seriously alarming for the judicial system as such kind of irrational information leads to reduce the confidence of the people in the system. The institution which is made to protect the rights of the people is trapped in a situation where it has to protect its own credibility, dignity as well as to earn the confidence of the people as guardian of their rights. It is the need of hour that a framework should be made to regulate these activities. The social media pages should refrain themselves from posting small clips on their pages, they should clearly give a disclaimer regarding any legal issue posted by them, there should be distinction made between oral observation and final upholding of the issue. Moreover, the people who are consuming such content should not make any opinion without checking the background of the issue and without reading the whole judgment passed by the court, if people disagree it should be related to the judgment or order with their reasoning, and no personal attack should be made on the judge. The legal service authorities should take an initiative to make people aware about all these activities going on social media and should conduct programmes to make people understand about the functioning of the judicial system. It is better to regulate social media platforms and to make people aware of this through framework policies instead of imposing any penal punishment, but if this option fails to achieve its objective, then a specific provision can be added in the Information Technology laws.
A bench should function freely and fairly without any unfair criticism. If a criticism is done, it should be done in a manner that it does not disturb the functioning of the system. A fair and reasoned criticism is always beneficial for the system to develop on its shortcomings. Moreover, while publishing any content on the social media channels it should be kept in mind that the content should not scandalize or lowers the authority of the judicial system. Thus, a bench should be allowed to conduct trial instead of being put on trial for the betterment of the society.
Author is a law student at University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University. Views are personal.