Social and digital media used for personal attacks on judges, need to be regulated: Justice JB Pardiwala

Supreme Court judge Justice JB Pardiwala on Sunday called for regulations to contain social media attacks on judges and the negative impact of trial by media..Justice Pardiwala opined that regulations must be put in place as uncurtailed personal attacks on judges by the media leads to a dangerous scenario where judges might get swayed by opinion in the media. "Attacks of judges for their judgments lead to a dangerous scenario where the judges have to think what the media thinks, rather than what the law actually says. This puts the rule of law on the burner, ignoring the sanctity of respect for the courts. This is where digital and social media needs to be regulated throughout the country to preserve the rule of law under our constitution," he said.While the constitutional courts have always graciously accepted informed dissents and constructive criticisms but their thresholds have always debarred personalised agenda driven attacks on the judges, he stated."Social and digital media is primarily resorted to expressing personalised opinions more against the judges, rather than a constructive critical appraisal of their judgments. This is what is harming the judicial institution and lowering its dignity," he said. .The judge pointed out that the same issue exists in cases which are of serious nature or those involving powerful public figures."Another issue of discussion is the punishments in serious offences. Immense power of the social and digital media platforms is persistently resorted to for precipitating the perception of guilt or innocence of the accused even before trial is over. This also sacrilegious to the rule when the issue is hyped or the accused is a big man. The society starts believing that the outcome of judicial proceedings ought to be nothing but conviction of the accused with extreme penalty for the accused," Justice Pardiwala underlined.Therefore, regulation of the digital and social media especially in the context of sensitive trials which are sub-judice must be considered by the parliament by introducing regulatory provisions, Justice Pardiwala underscored..The judge was speaking on the topic of “Vox Populi vs. Rule of Law: Supreme Court of India” at the 2nd Justice HR Khanna Memorial Symposium organised by Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow & National Law University, Odisha partnering with the Confederation of Alumni for National Law Universities (CAN Foundation).Justice Pardiwala said that India cannot be defined as a completely mature or defined democracy and social media is employed frequently to politicize purely legal and constitutional issues.In this regard, he cited the Ayodhya case which became increasingly politically coloured and social media was rife with opinions on the verdict as well as the judges who delivered the same.He noted that law like the Information Technology Act may offer some reprieve by controlling such situations based on studies and recommendations such as the Madrid Principles of 1994..Speaking on the balance between public opinion and the rule of law, Justice Pardiwala opined that the rule of law must prevail and public opinion has to be subordinate to it. "I firmly believe it is for the highest court in the country to decide any issue keeping only one thing in mind and that is rule of law. The Judicial verdicts cannot be the reflection of the influence of public opinion," he said. He also discussed the various schools of thought and the evolution of the discourse around the importance of vox populi and said that he personally believes that one ought to disassociate oneself from the majority and go by the rule of law."I believe in a democracy we have a systematic agreement to lead by the court decisions. It does not mean that they are right and free of all other considerations. We simply agree to lead by them. In a democracy, knowledge is more important than the systematic and blind obedience to the popular verdicts whether of the electorates or the courts," he said.However, the judge also added that while a judge’s role is to uphold the rule of law, it is important to consider the sentiments of the society and the perennial effects of the judgment he delivers in exceptional circumstances. He also spoke of the abolition of the jury system in India and the Supreme Court's Sabarimala judgment and the decision in Navtej Singh Johar which decriminalised consensual sex between persons of the same gender."Under our constitutional scheme no minority group must suffer deprivation of rights because they do not adhere to majoritarian way of life. When we look at landmark verdicts of the Supreme Court in Sabrimala, LGBT rights, those on death penalty, the friction between aspiration of society and the necessity of upholding rule of law comes to forefront," he said..Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta and Siddharth Bhatnagar also spoke at the event.