Justice Bagchi’s Concerns on Social Media and Judicial Independence
In a recent address, Justice Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court of India highlighted the profound impact of social media and algorithm-driven content on judicial independence. Speaking at the fifth Justice HR Khanna Memorial National Symposium, organized by the Confederation of Alumni for National Law Universities (CAN Foundation) on August 1, Justice Bagchi expressed concerns over social media’s role in transforming judicial proceedings into public spectacles.
Justice Bagchi pointed out that social media platforms and their algorithms are shaping public opinion, often leading to pre-trial judgments and affecting the impartiality of the judiciary. He stated, “Dispassionate adjudication is auctioned on the altar of likes, and judges are demonised in the social media marketplace for holding on to an independent view, not endorsed by the uninformed mob.”
Live-Streaming: Transparency with Consequences
The issue of live-streaming court proceedings was another critical point in Justice Bagchi’s discourse. While live-streaming aims to enhance transparency, it has also led to unintended outcomes. Justice Bagchi noted that unauthorized video clips from live-streamed sessions circulate widely, with provisional oral observations being misconstrued as final judgments. This, he argued, contributes to trolling and public misinterpretation of the judiciary’s actions.
The Challenge of Social Media Trials
Justice Bagchi further elaborated on the challenges posed by social media, describing it as a “hydra-headed” medium that spreads misinformation faster than corrections can be made. He emphasized that social media has become a parallel forum where judges face public scrutiny and condemnation, often disregarding judicial processes. He remarked, “Article 121 silences even Parliament from discussing a judge’s conduct, yet the digital public square tries him daily.”
Rejecting the notion that judges should engage on social media to counter misinformation, Justice Bagchi stated, “Our tradition prescribes that judges have to live and behave like hermits.” He warned that live-streaming could foster performative behavior in courts, turning the pursuit of truth into a “judicial theatre of hyperbole.”
More Read
Threats to Judicial Independence
Justice Bagchi outlined how digital technologies pose new pressures on judicial independence, different from past challenges. He observed that “a hashtag storm tests the judge’s resilience before an appeal is heard,” and cautioned against the influence of Big Tech algorithms, which are designed to sway public opinion for profit maximization rather than fair comment.
He asserted that media freedom must be balanced with the administration of justice, noting that while fair reporting is protected, it should not amount to a media trial or preemptive judgments.
Proposals for Safeguarding Judicial Integrity
In concluding, Justice Bagchi suggested that live-streaming should not be mandatory in all cases. Instead, it should be subject to court discretion or party requests to ensure fair trials. He also proposed that the Supreme Court and High Courts maintain secure digital archives of live-stream recordings, to be disclosed under the Right to Information Act when necessary, in compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.
