The implementation of social media by certain judges has established a forum for public deliberations on court processes, thereby influencing the function of judges.
The widespread adoption of communication technologies has made human life easier and more convenient. Historically, the techniques of communication that were accessible were arduous and inefficient. With the widespread use of technology in modern culture, communication has grown faster and more efficient. Thanks to the ubiquitous accessibility of the internet, it has become extremely convenient to get information and connect with people from all around the world. This has led to the world being compared to a small town metaphorically. Social media functions as a medium for facilitating connections between persons.
Social media covers computer-based technology that enables individuals to exchange ideas, perspectives, and data across multiple virtual venues. Social media is an internet platform that enables users to instantly exchange numerous types of content, including personal information, documents, movies, and images. As of October 2021, about 4.5 billion individuals employ social media platforms. Social media has altered the way society thinks. It has evolved into a platform for the dissemination of both veracity and falsehoods. When the social media justice system influences everything, judges are no exception.
Judges Independence
As the third organ of government, the judiciary must be free of any influence from the other two organs of government or the public in general. The phrase is normative in the sense that it specifies what courts and judges should have. The independence of the court is important in order to shield the general public from unfair treatment.
The notion of judicial independence originated with England’s Act of Settlement. Because of the variety of its people, the judiciary’s independence is crucial in a nation like India.
Provisions in the judiciary to ensure the independence of the judiciary:
- Security of tenure. (Art.124(2))
- Salary and allowances.
- Power to punish for its disrespect. (Art.129 in Supreme Court, Art.215 in High Court)
- Separation of judiciary from the executive. (Article 50)
- No practice after retirement.
With extensive judicial powers come enormous obligations for the judges. The Indian judiciary formulated certain principles during the Chief Justices’ Conference in 1999, which were supported by all High Courts. Not only must justice be done, but it must also be perceived to be done. Working members of the higher court must maintain and refresh the public’s belief in the judiciary’s impartiality.
Keeping this in mind, every Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, whether in an official or personal role, must avoid diminishing the confidence of the Indian judicial system. A Judge shall not allow any member of his immediate family, if a member of the Bar, to appear before him or be linked in any way with a case before him.
No member of his family who is a member of the Bar should occupy the same property as him or employ any other professional facilities afforded to judges. A Judge shall avoid hearing and judging on a case involving a member of his family, a close cousin, or a friend. A Judge must take extraordinary caution while engaging in public conversation or expressing his thoughts in public on political matters or issues that are ongoing or are likely to come for judicial settlement.
He must avoid occasions in which he is required to give media interviews. A Judge may only receive gifts or hospitality from his family, close relatives, and friends. A Judge shall not participate in commerce or business, either directly or indirectly (publication of a legal opinion or other activity in the nature of a hobby should not be recognised as trade or business).
A Judge is not permitted to make donations to or generate funds for any cause. A Judge should not seek any extra economic profit as a result of his office unless it is obviously feasible. Any ambiguity must be addressed and explained by the Chief Justice. Every Judge must bear in mind that they are always subject to public scrutiny; as a consequence, they must behave or omit in a way that does not impair the reputation related with the vocation.
The Bangalore principles of Judicial behaviour, 2002, put forth the ideas meant to set standards for judges’ ethical behaviour. These rules give advice to judges and control judicial behaviour. The principles’ major objective is to let members of the other two bodies of government, as well as the general public, support India’s judicial system.
Media Trials
Social media has transformed into a platform that disseminates ideas that may assist them acquire TRP rather than facts. Prolonged debates and discussions are held that are essentially speculative, jeopardising the rights of witnesses and the accused. The freedom of speech and expression given by Article 19(1)(a) has been repeatedly misused. In India, criminal jurisprudence is built on the notion that an accused cannot be declared guilty unless his guilt is established in a court of law. Social media provides opinions about both the victims and the accused that may or may not be factual.
The media ignores the “Guilty beyond reasonable doubt” and “Innocent until proven guilty” theories that govern Indian courts. It imposes a burden on trial courts, who are responsible for mitigating the impact of biassed publicity. Continuous statements from such social media platforms may cause courts to rule in favour of the media rather than what is truly required in the case.
In the Nupur Sharma case, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Pardiwala made oral statements during the hearing of the writ petition that lead to repeated personal assaults on the judges. The general populace does not always grasp the questions given in the courts in order to complete the requirements of the law. The media can only print the judges’ statements without appreciating the context in which they are used, which has an influence on the judges’ private life.
Impact on Social Media
Judges are ordinary citizens of the nation, and they, like any other citizen, are free to utilise social media, but they must keep in mind that their active engagement needs prudent thought. Judges must adhere to legal and ethical repercussions while keeping the essence of their work in mind.
The positive side of social media is that it stimulates connection and transparency in society; but, any postings made by judges are prone to misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the content posted by them, and have even led in cyberbullying and threats to privacy and safety. The International Bar Association Legal Policy and Research Unit (IBA LPRU) undertook a worldwide study in 2011 to analyse the influence of Online Social Networking (OSN) on the legal profession.
The poll to evaluate the influence of OSN on the legal profession found that judge usage of social media generated distinct worries, with 40% feeling that judges’ use of OSN damaged public trust in the justice system and threatened judicial independence. People have access to the words of judges, but the most of them lack legal education and fail to grasp the fundamental meaning underlying the justifications supplied by courts. Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has shown support for judicial use of social media.
He feels that social media channels should be employed to discuss ideas, opinions, and information. Judges must be granted absolute freedom to make decisions while conforming to the rule of law. In India, media trials have grown widespread. People have already passed judgement on an issue about which they have no understanding before a dispute is addressed in a court of law. Judges must be wary of how they depict themselves on social media.
They are not permitted to make any remarks on the matter they are hearing in court. The International Bar Association’s Legal Policy and Research Unit (LPRU) issued its International Principles on Social Media Conduct for the Legal Profession in 2014. This study addresses the merits and cons of using social media, as well as suggestions on judicial behaviours’ and ethics.
There is a need to restrict the exposure of judicial procedures because persons who do not know the law forget that there is no room for feelings in the law. Judgements are made with all legal issues in mind, and there are extremely limited possibilities that the ruling may be biased. In a democracy, criticizing any decision on legal grounds is permitted, but criticizing judges and making personal comments is defamation.
Judges must remain deaf to any criticism in order to uphold their oath of devotion to the Indian Constitution and the dignity of the office they occupy. It was highlighted in the Global Programmed for the Implementation of the Doha Declaration that education, training, and advise on how social media could impact its users are needed to bridge the gap between lawful comments on any verdict and personal attacks on judges.
Conclusion
The judiciary is the entity with responsibility of enforcing the law. It has the potential to offer victims with justice. It is crucial that the court has no undue influence on anybody in order for it to work correctly. Its correct functionality is vital for societal cohesion. Judges are social workers, and whatever verdict they make is based on the rules established by law and after appropriate deliberation. Their judgements must not be used to personally attack them, since this is against the law.
References
- investopedia.com › terms › s “Social Media: Definition, Effects, and List of Top Apps” -…Accessed on 13 September, 2022
- Data Reportal. “Global Social Media Stats October 2021”Accessed on 13 September, 2022
- royal.uk › act-settlement-0The Act of Settlement | The Royal Family
- barandbench.com › columns › social-media-and-the Social Media and the Judiciary – Bar and Bench
Written By
Rajnish Anand
9th semester
Jagannath University , Bahadurgarh
