Author- Gauri Shukla, Student at Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal, [M.P]
Introduction
Emergence of social media has revolutionized communication, allowing people to put forward their ideas and views, form groups, and highlight issues of public concern. It has transformed the way people interact and share information. India, with its diverse population has been no exception to this revolution. This rapid rise in usage of social media across the country has led to the emergence of a new and striking phenomenon referred to as a “social media trail”.
“Media trials are defined as regional or national news events in which the criminal justice system is co-opted by the media as a source of high drama and entertainment.” – K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra [1962 AIR 605]
The lines between public opinion, media coverage, and legal system are blurring increasingly hazy as a result of these trails, which are being held virtually through online platforms rather than traditional courtrooms. This phenomenon is lead by the power of social media of influencing the perception of its users by exchange of information (both, verified and unverified) and opinions. This raises concerns, especially about media trials as platforms like Instagram, Twitter (Now known as “X”), Facebook and Reddit. They have morphed into powerful tools which can shape “half-cooked” public opinions, spark revolutions, and even try individuals in the court; compromising the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” and undermining the fairness of legal proceedings. Hashtags like #JusticeForSushantSinghRajput, #MeToo, and #JusticeForAtulSubhash have driven millions to rally behind or condemn individuals based on limited or often rumored information. These movements may boost up societal concerns, but also highlight ‘justice by hashtag’, where due process is overlooked in favor of emotional and instant judgements.
Article 21 which embodies the concept of “due process,” guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Social media trials, however infringes this right by enabling individuals to be judged by the court of public opinion without any formal legal safeguards or procedures. This article traverses the rise of social media trials, their impact on due process, and relevant case laws.
Abstract
In the era dominated by virtual interactions, social media platforms have become spaces of public discourse, group discussions, activism, protests, and even trial. The emergence of “Social Media Trial” has raised significant concerns regarding erosion of due process, particularly in criminal cases. This article explores the effects of social media trials on the justice system, studies recent high-profile cases like the Atul Subhash case, the Sushant Singh Rajput case, and others, and analyzes the impact on legal procedures and rights. It also discusses judicial perspectives, case laws, and offers suggestions to restore the sanctity of due process in the age of viral hashtags.
Social Consequences
These trials have a significant social impact in India, that goes beyond legal system to create influence on people, communities, and social cohesions. Prejudices, stereotypes, and online vigilantism are often reinforced by these digital proceedings, which circumvent the legal system and lead to harassment, cyberbullying and privacy violations. Accused persons, victims and their families must contend with public scrutiny, and social discord. These trails undermine freedom of speech and undermine confidence in legal systems, leading many people to self-censor for fear of reprisals. Anonymous profiles promote misinformation, hate speech, and ethical dilemmas. To solve these issues and encourage social media use that respects people’s rights, legislation must be changed, privacy safeguards must be improved and strengthened; and awareness-raising campaigns must be launched.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which regulates social media prosecutions in India, includes provisions addressing hate speech, cyberbullying, and defamation. Defamation, as defined under Section 356, BNS, is the act of damaging or harming someone’s reputation by false claims, which is frequently done on social media. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s Sections 153A and 153B forbid hate speech that incites communal tension and conflict. Section 351 of the BNS addresses illegal intimidation and harassment, which may encompass online abuse, even if cyberbullying is not specifically defined. These provisions emphasize social media accountability while striking a balance between protections against harm and freedom of speech.
Due process: Definition & Constitutional Position
The concept is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, but it is embedded in the interpretation of Article 21 by the judiciary.
• In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597), the Supreme Court broadened the scope of Article 21, including the right to a fair and reasonable procedure.
• Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004): The Apex court stated that a fair trial is a fundamental component of criminal jurisprudence.
• Social media trails often violate this principle by
o Encouraging prejudice.
o Pressuring investigating agencies.
o Undermining sub judice rules (matters under judicial consideration)
The Proof: Social Media’s Impact on Judicial Process
1.The Atul Subhash Bhosale Case (Pune, 2024)
The tragic suicide of 34-year-old Bengaluru-based tech professional Atul Subhash has sparked a nationwide debate on men’s mental health, institutionalized discrimination in the legal system, and the social narratives that have developed thereafter.
The argument has been further exacerbated by how Subhash’s suicide was portrayed in the media. Some media outlets have come under fire for such portrayal of the tragedy as a conflict between women’s and men’s rights, which could have widened the gap between both the genders. Such portrayals have the potential to obscure the issue’s complexity and reduce it to a binary conflict rather than a multifaceted societal issue that calls for nuanced answers.
The media’s portrayal of Subhash’s suicide highlights the need for ethical reporting that prioritizes truthfulness, tact, and equity over sensationalism. Some news outlets have exacerbated gender divisions and obscured the underlying societal problems by framing the event as a battle between men’s and women’s rights.
Such reporting might become a catalyst for significant change under a more moral and impartial stance, promoting greater comprehension and institutional changes to prevent future tragedies of this kind.
2. The Sushant Singh Rajput Case (2020)
Following the mysterious death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput on June 14, 2020, in his Mumbai home, initially ruled as suicide. His family accused his girlfriend, Rhea Chakraborty, of financial exploitation and aiding his suicide. Despite the paucity of proof, sensationalized coverage demonized Rhea, swaying public opinion and casting doubt on the propriety of media trials.
Before the tragedy of the late actor’s death, Rhea was not at all a familiar actor to the general public. Even though she had made her debut in a movie 10 years ago, she hadn’t gained any popularity as such, but in those days’ ‘rhea’ was the hot topic in news that India’s media wanted to talk about. The actress became a target of intense media scrutiny and online harassment and threats on social media, despite the lack of concrete evidence linking her to the alleged crime, merely based on unverified rumors.
Legal Repercussions:
• Violated Article 21 (Right to Dignity)
• Created public prejudice that could affect the administration of justice.
• Resulted in the Supreme Court transferring the case to the CBI due to public pressure.
The Bombay High Court later notified that the “media trial” had a detrimental impact on Rhea’s rights and emphasized the need to draw a line between free speech and media overreach.
3. The #MeToo Movement in India (2018 onwards)—
Like its global counterpart, the #MeToo movement in India received an array of momentum on social media, especially Twitter (now known as X), where the survivors of such sexual harassment and assault were able to share their stories. Public discussion and debates were triggered by this online activism, which led to prompting investigations and the accountability of influential people. Though, the movement also came under fire for possible injustices and irreversible reputational damage for those accused because of the absence of official legal procedures and the possibility of social media trials.
Instances-
• MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani: The case is considered a landmark legal battle in India, significant for its connection to the #MeToo movement. A journalist, Priya Ramani, accused MJ Akbar, who was then a union minister, of sexual harassment. Ramani was acquitted in a criminal defamation action brought against her by Akbar by the Delhi High Court in 2021, affirming the right of women to speak up even after decades and recognizing sexual harassment as a violation of dignity under Section 21.
• Alok Nath—Accused by writer-producer Vinda Nanda of rape and sexual misconduct by multiple women during the wave of the MeToo movement in 2018. Despite no criminal conviction, he was dropped from projects and vilified across platforms.
While the movement rightly acted as a powerful force in raising awareness about sexual harassment and assault while empowering survivors, it has also faced criticism and potential downsides.
• Some argue it can result in a “rush to judgement” and “cancel culture,” while others draw attention to its intersectionality’s limitations and the possibility of additional trauma for survivors. It also raised concerns about
• No presumption of Innocence
• No opportunity for legal redressal
• Digital defamation without scrutiny
Case Laws
R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106
It is considered to be a critical judgment on professional misconduct and judicial integrity. It stemmed from a sting operation showing senior advocate R.K. Anand attempting to influence a witness in the BMW hit-and-run case. The Delhi High Court held him guilty of contempt, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The case highlighted the role of media in exposing unethical behavior but also raised concerns about trial by media. Its relevance to social media trials is in the warning it offers against media-driven narratives influencing justice. It reinforces the need to protect court proceedings from external pressure.
State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997) 8 SCC 386
It is a significant case where the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for the accused, who brutally murdered a family. Notably, the court observed that a trial by media before a judicial verdict is a danger to the fair trial process. The court cautioned against media interference, stating that public opinion shaped by media coverage and circulation of unverified information cannot override judicial decision-making. The court stated that
“A trial by press, electronic media, or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law.”
The draw of its relevance in this article is that it highlights how premature public judgment and widespread online discussions can threaten the accused’s right to a fair and impartial trial.
Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753
The Maharashtra Police arrested five activists, including Romila Thapar, in relation to the violence in Bhima Koregaon. The activists were charged with inciting violence and possessing links to a prohibited group. In a petition challenging the arrests, Romila Thapar and other petitioners claimed that the police had infringed upon their fundamental rights and that the investigation was prejudiced. To look into the issue, they requested a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
By a majority vote, the Apex Court denied the SIT petition. The accused does not have the authority to choose the investigating agency or control the course of investigation, the court ruled. Since it highlights that the investigating authorities have authority over the investigating process and advocates for media neutrality in politically sensitive cases, this verdict is pertinent to social media trials. Even though social media evidence may be used in an investigation, the accused cannot control its use or insist on a specific approach to investigation.
Reference
1. https://indialegallive.com/laws-research-indepth/how-does-social-media-influence-media-trials-and-the-perception-of-justice-in-society/
2. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/SOCIAL-MEDIA-TRIALS-IN-INDIA-A-COMPREHENSIVE-ANALYSIS-OF-LEGAL-IMPLICATIONS-AND-SOCIETAL-IMPACT.pdf
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
4. Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603
5. MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani, Delhi HC Judgment, 2021
6. Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753
Conclusion
• Undoubtedly, social media has empowered voices that were once silenced in the past. However, it is increasingly evident that the same platforms are compromising the constitutional ideals of justice due to the lack of accountability and regulation.
• Justice by hashtag cannot replace justice by evidence.
• It is essential to:
Enforce ethical standards for influencers and media houses.
Strengthened user’s digital literacy.
Enact legislation or amendments to penalize prejudicial social media content on sub judice matters.
Encourages courts to issue media restraint orders in sensitive cases.
Only by reaffirming faith in the judicial process over public hysteria can the rule of law be preserved in this digital era.
FAQs
Is the trial by media punishable in India?
Yes, if media reporting prejudices ongoing proceedings, it can amount to contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Can social media users be sued for defamation?
Yes, civil and criminal defamation remedies under section 356 of the BNS can be invoked.
Can courts restrict social media coverage?
Yes, courts can restrict social media coverage, but these restrictions are subject to legal and constitutional limitations. The judiciary can issue gag orders, postponement orders, or conduct in-camera proceedings.
Are online acquisitions considered legal complaints?
Legal action begins with FIRs or formal complaints under BNSS, not tweets or posts.
What protections exist for falsely accused individuals?
Legal remedies they may seek are
Defamation suit (Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)).
Writ petition under Article 226
Compensation under public law remedies (e.g., Nilabati Behera Case)
