In today’s digital age, social media has evolved from a simple communication platform to a powerful societal force, influencing political movements, cultural dynamics, and even legal outcomes. With billions of users on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and others, the internet has become a modern-day soapbox. It enables influencers, activists, and everyday individuals to broadcast their views and content globally, irrespective of institutional or racial barriers. This democratization of information has brought benefits like greater public awareness of legal cases and judicial decisions, but it has also complicated the fields of law and justice.
Social Media Influence on Legal Frameworks –
Social media’s ability to shape public discourse raises complex legal and ethical concerns. The increasing role of activists and influencers in discussions about laws and political frameworks allows citizens to engage in the decision-making process. While this amplifies ordinary voices, it may also lead to individuals with little legal knowledge impacting significant legal discussions. For instance, while legal precedents have traditionally been built on rigorous analysis of laws and facts, public opinion—amplified through social media—now has the potential to sway the perception of cases. This has long-term implications for legal discourse, as public sentiment may pressure courts to prioritize popular opinion over legal principles, potentially leading to judgments that deviate from established norms. Platforms like Twitter Facebook and TikTok have enabled millions to react instantly to court decisions, and in extreme cases, this can pressure courts or lawmakers to act based on public sentiment rather than legal principles.
The Sushant Singh Rajput Case (2020) is a great example of how many times the course of the case was diverted due to massive public pressure. Initially investigated as a suicide, the case was transferred from the State Police to the CBI following massive public pressure and conspiracy theories circulated online. Many Bollywood personalities were dragged into the controversy, and allegations of nepotism in the industry became a focal point of the discourse. The drug allegations changed the approach of the court with the major accused Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik Chakraborty and her father Indrajit Chakraborty being put in bars, not for abetment of suicide but for drug misuse. Allegations like siphoning of money, abetment of suicide, alienation, and drug-related and many other accusations on the major convicts were proved false when the report of AIIMS declared it to be a clear case of suicide.
Influence of social media in courtrooms –
The presence of social media can deeply affect courtroom dynamics, from the behaviour of judges and lawyers to the overall trial process. Judges, once expected to base their rulings solely on courtroom evidence, now face exposure to outside influences through online platforms. This raises concerns about judicial bias. While it is impermissible for judges to engage in discussions or form opinions outside of the courtroom, the ease of accessing social media can compromise the fairness of a trial. If judges or legal professionals engage with external opinions, it could expose the parties to prejudicial treatment, violating the principle of impartiality.
The R.G Kar Medical College and Hospital Case –
The alleged rape and murder of a 31-year-old postgraduate trainee doctor who was found dead and brutally murdered inside the hospital premises of R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal is an instance where public opinion affected the court. The large-scale ongoing protests by junior doctors, students, and political parties not only induced the Supreme Court to take Suo-moto cognizance of the matter but also prompted it to start a thorough investigation by handing the case from the West Bengal Police to the CBI. The protests not only affected the day-to-day life of the general public but also many people who were denied medical facilities due to a lack of doctors in hospitals. The case is currently being investigated by the CBI as ordered by the Apex Court and the protesters are being told to return to their respective workplaces to balance the irregularities caused by the protests.
The great influence of public opinion can also be showcased by the fact that the West Bengal legislative assembly has unanimously passed The Aparajita Woman and Child Bill (West Bengal Criminal Laws and Amendment) Bill, 2024, to make a peaceful stop to the ongoing protests.
Media Trials And Regulations –
“Media trials” occur when news outlets shape public opinion before a court can deliver a verdict. A prime example is the Ayodhya Ram Mandir dispute, where intense media coverage fueled communal tensions and media trials began to emerge in newspapers, articles and social media based on false evidence and claims. Following the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid, the media played a significant role in escalating religious and political conflict. The Allahabad High Court’s 2010 decision to divide the disputed land reflected the pervasive influence of media, showcasing the dangers of external narratives shaping legal outcomes.
To mitigate such influences, the Indian legal system has enacted regulations to preserve judicial integrity. The Contempt of Courts Act, of 1971, remains an essential tool for addressing any behaviour that may undermine the judiciary. This Act allows the courts to penalize content that could prejudice ongoing legal proceedings or discredit judicial authority. Additionally, the Information Technology Act, of 2000, provides a legal framework for regulating online content and addressing defamation, misinformation, and other illegal activities that can distort the judicial process. Amendments to the IT Act have introduced specific provisions to curb harmful content, particularly that which may affect legal matters. Amendments to the Act have introduced provisions to curb the spread of harmful or false information, including content related to legal issues and judgements.
Suggestions and conclusion –
As younger judges in India maintain an online presence, concerns grow about their exposure to public opinion. While higher-level judges traditionally delete social media accounts upon elevation, many lower-court judges continue to engage online. The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997), adopted by the Supreme Court, though non-binding, emphasizes the need for judges to maintain dignity and avoid behaviour that might undermine public trust.
Moreover, the trend of trolling judges on social media, often targeting the Supreme and High Courts, has become prevalent. Judges’ photos with derogatory comments, like the Supreme Court being called “Supreme Kotha” and its judges “Miya Lord,” in May 2024 reflect a disturbing trend aimed at politicizing and defaming the judiciary. A group of 600 lawyers expressed grave concern to Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, accusing these actions of attempting to pressure and undermine the judiciary with unfounded arguments and political motives.
To balance free expression with a fair legal system, laws must adapt to technological advancements, addressing privacy, cybercrime, and misinformation. Legal mechanisms should hold platforms accountable for harmful content while preserving democratic discourse. Collaborative efforts between governments, civil society, and tech companies can curb misinformation without stifling free speech.
In conclusion, navigating social media’s influence on law requires a proactive approach involving legal professionals, technologists, and social scientists. By fostering cooperation between online platforms and the judiciary, society can achieve a balance where free expression thrives alongside the protection of public interests and judicial fairness.
Author(s) Name: Ravi Shanker Bhatt (Assam University)
