Digital Mobs and the Threat to Dispassionate Adjudication
Supreme Court Justice Joymalya Bagchi has warned that the judiciary faces unprecedented challenges from algorithm-driven content and online misinformation. Speaking on August 1 at the fifth Justice HR Khanna Memorial National Symposium, organized by the Confederation of Alumni for National Law Universities (CAN Foundation), he said the pursuit of justice is increasingly becoming a search for digital validation. He described the growing Social Media Judicial Impact as a serious concern, noting that online approval quietly weakens judicial independence.
Justice Bagchi explained that judges often face harsh criticism on social media when their decisions do not match the views of an uninformed online crowd. He said this trend turns fair adjudication into a competition for “likes” instead of respect for the rule of law. According to him, the pressure to satisfy digital opinion can damage judicial independence more effectively than fear or intimidation.
The Unintended Consequences of Live-Streamed Proceedings
Justice Bagchi acknowledged that courts introduced live-streaming to improve transparency. However, he said the practice has also created new challenges. Unauthorized users frequently circulate short video clips from official broadcasts without proper context. As a result, people often mistake preliminary courtroom observations for final judicial decisions.
He also noted that widespread broadcasts encourage performative behavior in court. Lawyers and even judges may feel pressure to address the online audience rather than focus entirely on legal arguments. He stressed that courtrooms should remain spaces for careful legal reasoning, not public performances.
Constitutional Protections and the Digital Public Square
Justice Bagchi compared constitutional safeguards with today’s digital environment. He referred to Article 121 of the Constitution, which bars Parliament from discussing a judge’s conduct except in limited circumstances. In contrast, social media platforms subject judges to constant public scrutiny and criticism.
He observed that online communities sometimes create narratives of guilt even after courts deliver lawful acquittals. Despite these challenges, he rejected the idea of judges joining social media to counter misinformation. Instead, he said judges should remain detached from public praise, online criticism, and the pursuit of followers to preserve judicial neutrality.
Media Trials, Algorithms, and Digital Records
Justice Bagchi also warned against media trials. He reminded stakeholders that freedom of the press carries reasonable restrictions when the administration of justice is at stake. He said courts should examine viral clips and media coverage through the principles of criminal contempt whenever they interfere with judicial proceedings.
He identified Big Tech algorithms as a major cross-border challenge because they amplify outrage and sensational content for commercial gain. Referring again to the Social Media Judicial Impact, he argued that algorithm-driven engagement often distorts public understanding of court proceedings.
To address these concerns, Justice Bagchi suggested that courts should decide whether to live-stream proceedings on a case-by-case basis or upon a party’s request. This approach, he said, would better protect the right to a fair trial. He also recommended that the Supreme Court and High Courts securely preserve official live-stream recordings under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. Authorities could later provide these records through the Right to Information (RTI) Act or use them in appellate proceedings when necessary.
