Social media has turned justice into a marketplace of 'likes': Justice Joymalya Bagchi

The biggest challenge to judicial independence today comes from misinformation and algorithm-driven content influencing public opinion and testing judges even before cases are decided,Supreme Court Justice Joymalya Bagchi recently said.

Justice Bagchi warned that social media and algorithm-driven public outrage are reshaping how justice is perceived and social media was increasingly turning judicial proceedings into spectacles.

This has often led to judges being demonised on social media for taking a view not endorsed by the mob, 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," observed Justice Bagchi.

Justice Bagchi was speaking at the fifth Justice HR Khanna Memorial National Symposium organised by the Confederation of Alumni for National Law Universities (CAN Foundation) on August 1.

On live-streaming of court proceedings, Justice Bagchi said greater transparency has come with unintended consequences.

"Live-streaming has brought its own problems. Digital space is replete with unauthorised video clips of judicial proceedings, extracted or copied from the live-streamed content. Judiciary is trolled by treating tentative oral observations as final verdicts," he noted.

Justice Bagchi said the larger challenge extended beyond the courtroom to online platforms, where misinformation spreads faster than corrections.

"The deeper challenge, however, is no longer the camera in the courtroom, but the hydra-headed social media outside it. Our tools, tailored to print and electronic media, were never designed for it. A clip uploaded on one platform regrows on many. Misinformation outruns the correction," he observed.

He warned that social media had effectively become a parallel forum where judges themselves are subjected to public scrutiny and condemnation.

"Article 121 silences even parliament from discussing a judge's conduct, yet the digital public square tries him daily. Guilt manufactured online brands the acquitting judge as having erred for being fair," noted Justice Bagchi.

He rejected the suggestion that judges should counter misinformation through social media.

"One may argue that the judge may clear misinformation by being on social media himself. However, our tradition prescribes that judges have to live and behave like hermits," said Justice Bagchi.

He also warned that live-streaming risked encouraging performative conduct in court.

"With the immense reach of live-streaming, the courtroom becomes a platform to address a wider audience. This breeds a propensity amongst the stakeholders, both judges and lawyers, for grandstanding. A forensic quest for the truth is altered into a judicial theatre of hyperbole," observed Justice Bagchi.

He said that judges must remain insulated not only from intimidation but also from public adulation.

"A judge is bound by oath to act without fear of the digital mob, without favour towards the applauding crowd, and above all, without followers. For the new media rarely threatens a judge with punishment. It tempts him with approval, and approval corrodes independence more quietly than fear ever did," he said.

Justice Bagchi noted that the judiciary today faces threats that were fundamentally different from those of the past, with digital technologies creating new pressures on judicial independence.

"Today, judicial independence faces newer challenges. The threat looms in digital form and is global in origin. It can be initiated from any corner of the earth. A hashtag storm tests the judge's resilience before an appeal is heard. A 30-second clip passes off a casual courtroom exchange as a sensational decision and an algorithm assisting adjudication can carry an invisible prejudice," he observed.

Additionally, he also cautioned against media trials. He noted that the constitutional guarantee of press freedom os subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the administration of justice.

"The freedom of press guaranteed by the constitution can be reasonably restricted on the ground of contempt. Criminal contempt means any act which scandalises the court, interferes with judicial proceedings or obstructs the administration of justice. A media trial or a viral clip must be tested on this angle," said Justice Bagchi.

While emphasising that fair reporting and criticism remain protected, Justice Bagchi said media freedom could not become a licence to pronounce guilt before courts had passed its verdict.

He also identified Big Tech algorithms as emerging risks to judicial independence and informed public discourse.

"Today, the biggest threat to judicial independence and informed public opinion is not the other organs of the government, but the machine learning algorithms of the big tech, trained to tilt the public opinion against judicial process, not as fair comment, but a curated public outrage for sensationalisation and profit maximisation," noted Justice Bagchi.

He suggested that live-streaming of court proceedings should not be compulsory in every case. Instead, he said it should be left to the discretion of the court or allowed at the request of the parties to protect the right to a fair trial.

Justice Bagchi also proposed that the Supreme Court and High Courts maintain secure digital archives of live-stream recordings, which could be preserved under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. These recordings would be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, and produced before higher courts when required.