Social Media Misinformation Threatens Judicial Independence: Justice Bagchi

• Justice Joymalya Bagchi calls social media misinformation a major challenge to judicial independence.
• Says digital intermediaries must take responsibility for curbing misinformation.
• Warns viral courtroom clips and media trials can distort judicial proceedings.
• Suggests courts should have discretion over live-streaming depending on the nature of cases.

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 5th Aug: Supreme Court judge Justice Joymalya Bagchi has warned that social media misinformation, algorithm-driven public opinion and online outrage are emerging as major challenges to judicial independence, putting unprecedented pressure on judges and the justice system.

Speaking at the fifth Justice H.R. Khanna Memorial National Symposium on August 1, Justice Bagchi described social media as “hydra-headed”, observing that misinformation can spread faster than corrections and that digital platforms increasingly shape public perceptions of judicial proceedings.

“Dispassionate adjudication is being auctioned on the altar of ‘likes’,” Justice Bagchi said, warning that online narratives can effectively pronounce guilt even before courts reach their conclusions.

“Guilt manufactured online brands the acquitting judge as having erred for being fair,” he said.

Justice Bagchi noted that Article 121 of the Constitution restricts Parliament from discussing the conduct of judges except in circumstances related to their removal, but judges are subjected to scrutiny and judgment every day in the “digital public square”.

Digital Platforms Have ‘First Responsibility’
Justice Bagchi placed significant responsibility on digital intermediaries to address the spread of misinformation, arguing that entities wielding substantial influence cannot merely claim to be neutral mediums.

He also identified algorithms used by Big Tech platforms as an emerging concern, saying their tendency to promote sensational content could influence public opinion in ways prejudicial to judicial proceedings.

Justice Bagchi cautioned judges against responding to such pressures through social media, maintaining that judicial officers must preserve restraint and impartiality.

Judges, he said, should neither be influenced by fear of a “digital mob” nor tempted by online praise and popularity.

While social media may not directly threaten judges with punishment, the attraction of digital approval can pose a subtler threat to judicial independence, he observed.

Live-Streaming Brings Transparency, But Risks Remain
Justice Bagchi acknowledged that live-streaming court proceedings has improved transparency and expanded public access to the judicial process, but warned of unintended consequences.

Short clips from hearings are frequently circulated without context, while oral observations made during proceedings can be incorrectly presented as final judgments, he noted.

He also cautioned that turning courtrooms into digital platforms for mass audiences could encourage performative behaviour within the judicial process.

Justice Bagchi suggested that live-streaming should not necessarily be mandatory in every case. Instead, courts should be allowed to decide based on the nature of the proceedings and the requirements of a fair trial.

He further proposed that the Supreme Court and High Courts maintain secure digital records of live-streamed proceedings that could be made available when required under applicable legal provisions.

Justice Bagchi Flags Risks of ‘Media Trials’
The Supreme Court judge also raised concerns over media trials, stressing that while freedom of the press remains vital to democracy, it cannot become a means of declaring an accused guilty before a court delivers its verdict.

His remarks highlighted the growing challenge confronting the judiciary as courts seek to balance transparency and public access with the need to protect fair trials and judicial independence in an increasingly algorithm-driven information environment.