Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka on Wednesday cautioned that live reporting of court proceedings often misrepresents judges’ prima facie observations as final views, potentially misleading the public.

Speaking at the launch of the book '[In] Complete Justice? The Supreme Court at 75', edited by former Orissa High Court Chief Justice S Muralidhar, Justice Oka said that judges sometimes make strong remarks during hearings only to test lawyers and elicit their best arguments.

“Personally speaking, I developed the art of ignoring what media says. But due to live-tweeting, what happens is that what the judge has said is projected as a final decision. A few days later, when the judgment comes the other way, it creates confusion,” he noted

Justice Oka stressed that while members of the legal fraternity understand the process, laypersons including "highly educated" ones can be swayed by instantaneous social media commentary.

He cited the Supreme Court's NJAC verdict of 2015 as an example, questioning how television channels began analysing the decision almost immediately after its delivery.

“The NJAC judgment had almost a thousand pages. I asked one television anchor – when this judgment was uploaded, within minutes you started analysing the judgment. How could you read a 1,000-page judgment within 10 minutes?” Justice Oka recalled, contrasting it with the more careful practice of earlier generations of court reporters.

The former Supreme Court judge was participating in a panel discussion moderated by Newslaundry's Managing Editor Manisha Pande.

His co-panelists in the discussion were Justice Muralidhar and Professor Gopal Guru.

Picking up the thread, Justice Muralidhar acknowledged the performative aspect of modern-day courtrooms.

“This is an inevitable situation. Courts are theatres of performance. Lawyers and sometimes judges are aware of it and they are performing for the gallery,” he observed.

He cautioned, however, that the increasing circulation of viral courtroom clips — from sharp judicial observations to moments of rebuke — risked skewing public perception.

“It is inevitable in a democratic space, but media must resist over-sensationalising and place them in context,” Justice Muralidhar said

The discussion began with a question from Pande on whether India had done enough to protect press freedom and shield individuals from “trials by media.”

Justice Muralidhar was unequivocal in his response:

“That’s a no brainer, because we’ve not done enough,” he said.

He pointed out that while the press itself is often a victim often facing FIRs, defamation cases and even UAPA charges for reporting, it can also become an institution that has a prosecutorial bent.

Smaller independent outlets often end up spending their resources fighting cases in police stations and High Courts and the Supreme Court, he further said.

The panel also discussed how copyright laws are increasingly used to stifle dissent. Pande highlighted a recent case where a satirical outlet was pulled up for using television clips as memes.

“It was a satire. It was a meme. I think memes are the new cartoons,” she remarked, stressing that courts must adapt to new forms of critique

Pofessor Gopal Guru added a broader perspective, pointing to structural pressures on the press.

“If you look at the political economy of the media, when the Constitution was made, one of the issues before the Constituent Assembly was that the newspaper was largely being used for the market… It was held that the right to carry advertisements was not an integral part of freedom of speech. That kind of understanding is no longer there in our jurisprudence,” he said.

Prof. Guru further remarked on the balance between judicial temperament and justice.

“Anger of the judge is well taken when it is accompanied by uncompromising vigilance about justice. Is it the case?