The Impact of Social Media on Judges: The Weight of Public Opinions on Proceedings

From long discussion threads on Twitter to engaging posts on Instagram, social media has become the point of discussion about current happenings and the impact of previous regimes/ events on today’s world. Users of social media have taken almost every topic under discussion, and judicial proceedings are no exception. The debate, however, sparks when considering the extent to which this is beneficial, whether the opinion of the public interrupts the decision of the courtroom, and whether the legislation laid down is broken by the acts of the public.

In foundation, it is important to consider the rights of judges in terms of the use of social media. Like every other citizen, judges have the right to have social media accounts and be active on different platforms. However, the importance and the responsibilities that come with being in a position of higher authority require the judge to be more vigilant while expressing his opinion in public on different political matters, and existing or pending judicial decisions. A judge must also avoid giving interviews to media publications. There are more limitations to the activities that can be performed by judicial authorities, but these primarily stay relevant to the topic of social media influence.

Being under the scrutiny of the public eye can push a judge to be more responsible about their final judgments, possibly allowing the victim to have a better stance. Apart from this, it would ensure the public has a better understanding of the law in place and allows improved transparency between courtrooms and the public.

Through social media, the general public has been able to raise their opinion in the form of protests and demonstrations and has ensured important issues stay relevant. The constant pressure has led to progressive changes in particular acts that certainly lead to a safer society.

A prominent example is the Delhi Rape Case: a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern was tortured, and gang raped in a private bus. The case is known as ‘Nirbhaya’ which translates to fearless. This incident gathered the attention of national and international media. The constant coverage of various protests, and outrages in different parts of the world about the failure to provide safety for women forced many amendments in the law, particularly in the Juvenile Justice Act, where the age for punishment had been reduced from eighteen to sixteen for such acts.

Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution provides every individual with freedom of speech and expression. This right has particular restrictions that are mentioned under Article 19 (2). The restrictions on exercising the right exclude discussion: “in the interests of India’s sovereignty and integrity, state security, foreign relations, public order, morality or contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”

Failure to understand the restrictions of the Article can create a negative impact on the case under discussion and the final judgment provided.

A social media trial is when different groups of people conduct a separate investigation about the case and form a public opinion before the court recognizes the case. This creates a form of prejudice in both the judges involved and the general public.

These separate investigations can often result in evidence that has not been presented in court to come to light. Media platforms shed attention to these types of information for commercial benefits such as a raise in TRP. The public fails to understand that some of this evidence can be considered invalid when presented in court. Prolonged discussions about the same can influence the final decision of the proceeding.

Trial courts must minimize the effect of prejudicial publicity. The criminal jurisprudence strongly follows the theory: “Guilty beyond reasonable doubt” and “Innocent until proven guilty”. Unfortunately, media trials and social media debates do not consider this principle that governs trials in India. Consequently, it increases the burden on the trial courts, deprives those involved of the right to a fair trial (Article 21), and in certain circumstances, constant pressure from the public can force judges to take decisions based on what would satisfy the media rather than a fair judgment to those involved in the case. Even though people have access to the words mentioned by the judges, the majority lack knowledge about the law being investigated and fail to interpret the actual meaning behind the rationale given.

In the case of the Rohtak sisters (2014), two women shared a video on the internet in which they claimed to be attacking a group of boys who harassed them. The video gained much attention which led to the local police arresting the three accused. The three men were charged under Section 354 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

However, in December 2014, some passengers who were on the bus came forward to provide witness testimony which stated that the fight was not due to harassment but was about an old women’s seat being occupied by the girls.

The girls requested a Polygraph and Psychological Assessment Test (PAT) to prove their version of the incident was true. However, the result turned out to be ‘unsatisfactory’ for the girls while the boys passed the test. The accused men were finally out on bail and had their charges revoked on 3 March 2017.

This case is a crucial example of how public opinion through excessive social media intervention cannot let the judiciary framework of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ function. The framework is put in place to ensure the accused if innocent can return to normalcy after the trials without much damage to their reputation and future. The weight of public opinions in such cases interrupts the framework and forces the innocent into terrible conditions. In this particular case, the boys involved are unable to find a job for themselves due to their portrayal when falsely accused.

The source of information to the public is not directly from the courtroom itself but is influenced by a mediatory. Sometimes, because of this, the general public fails to understand that the questions asked in a courtroom are to fulfil certain legal requirements.

The impact of social media on proceedings leads to a far extent of backlash to the judges when the final judgment is not in favor of public opinion, leading to reduced independence and risk of higher bias. Accusations of judges being ill-informed play an indirect influence.

An international survey was carried out in 2011 by the International Bar Association's Legal Policy & Research Unit (IBA LPRU) to investigate the influence that Online Social Networking (OSN) has had on the legal profession.

Judges' use of social media raised specific concerns, according to the survey designed to gauge OSN's impact on the legal profession. 40% answered that utilization of OSN adversely impacted public trust in the equity framework and subverted legal autonomy.

In conclusion, social media is a framework that includes truth and lies. While it has effectively allowed justice to be served in many cases and has stood as a support for the victim involved, it cannot be ignored that, at the core, it disturbs the legal framework and reduces the independence of the courts. The effect of excessive public opinions can create bias in the decisions of the judge or the public itself, which can harm the future of the individuals in the case.

It is important that public opinions through social media are strictly regulated in such a manner, that the inputs given are beneficial for the case and ensure progressive developments, but also do not interrupt the framework and independence of the legal system.

~Authored by Aishwarya Shankar