Further, he highlighted the media's crucial role in disseminating information, citing cases where media reports prompted judicial intervention.

He narrated two cases of prolonged incarceration where individuals, one jailed for 41 years and another for 51 years, were released after the judiciary acted on reports highlighting their plight. In one instance, the person was found to be of unsound mind.

He also urged the media to act responsibly, particularly in cases involving sensitive issues like sexual violence. He stressed that non-disclosure of victims’ identities is essential to protect their dignity and privacy.

Justice Bindal even addressed the evolving concerns surrounding privacy in the digital era, particularly the right to be forgotten. He explained how public access to court records often skews perceptions of individuals.

"Recently in 2024 two petitioners got acquitted and we masked their names. If you see trial court record when someone is convicted and HC acquits him.. so all are available and when they are searching background etc. the conviction judgment may come up and not the acquittal. So that acts against them," he explained.

Regarding backlog of cases, Justice Bindal noted that India has over 5 crore pending cases with only 20,000 judges nationwide. Despite these constraints, he highlighted that 1.5 crore cases are disposed of annually.

Justice Bindal cautioned against the impact of media trials on the justice system. “Cases have to be decided on evidence and not based on reporting,” he said, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence from public and media pressure.

He also raised concerns about the misreporting of courtroom exchanges, especially when such remarks are not part of formal orders. Recalling his experience in the Calcutta High Court, where he headed a five-judge bench, he remarked, “Every exchange was being reported. If the journalist knows the law, it is fine, but sensationalism must be avoided.”

#Breaking: Cross-examination in Supreme Court? What Dushyant Dave said in Judge Loya case