INTRODUCTION
There was once a time when justice occurred quietly in wood-paneled courthouses and under heaps of books and law reports, away from prying eyes. However, it is safe to say that this is no longer a justice trend. Where there were once trip schedules and covers to cases, there is now a Twitter thread. Instagram stories digest the details of complex rulings and break them down. One viral post can lead to protests, lawsuits, or legislative changes.
At some point, social media became something more than just a space for people to post selfies or pictures of their food; it is now a loud, messy, and often disagreeable space to observe the goods and bads of the relationship between law and public opinion. Every reel, post, or hashtag has a real impact on outcomes and discussions in court. Justice in modern-day India is no longer just lodged with court filings; it lives on our screens.
THE GROWTH OF SOCIAL MEDIA-DRIVEN JUSTICE
Take the #JusticeForSSR campaign that occurred after the actor Sushant Singh Rajput passed away. Something that started as a tragic loss of life quickly became a digital national campaign that called for a CBI inquiry. It was mass online outrage that put public pressure on law enforcement agencies, which was unprecedented. In many ways, the case became a social media trial before any formal investigations were concluded.[1]
The same can be said for the Bilkis Bano case and its subsequent mass online outrage after the convicts’ early release; this again showcased how spaces like Twitter and Instagram can become tools for mobilizing public interest, raising legally available information, and questioning state behavior.[2]
MEDIA TRIALS V. LEGAL TRIALS
Yet, though democratizing legal discourse can be a powerful means for justice, it raises red flags. “Trial by media,” a development greatly exacerbated by social media, places at risk the presumption of innocence.
The Aryan Khan drug case is a perfect example. Long before the Narcotics Control Bureau published conclusions on its findings, Aryan saw himself in an online lynching. Countless memes, theories, and accusations were published, and an entire digital ecosystem was built during the investigative phase that was already edging out what is required to ensure a fair judicial proceeding. Established narratives that had developed online were, at times, very difficult for even the most experienced lawyers to walk back.[3]
The Supreme Court of India has cautioned against these real-time influences and, in Sahara India Real Estate v. SEBI (2012), took the opportunity to reiterate these warnings. The Court observed that the media must balance the competing rights of freedom of expression (Art. 19(1)(a)) and fair trial (Art. 21).[4]
DIGITAL PROOF AND LEGAL REALITY
Nothing you post is off-limits now. Digital prints, digital conversations, digital chats, tweets, and even Snapchat locations are all now included in the evidence pool. We saw this firsthand during the Bois Locker Room incident, where it was Instagram DMs that turned out to be the evidence for the investigation.[5]
The Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) decision from the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act and the value of free speech online.[6] But it raised new issues: Where does free speech stop and defamation/slander begin? When does a meme turn into arguments for incitement?
Investigators now dive into timelines before they even open case files, and lawyers now present evidence of statements made three years ago in some instances.
WHEN HASHTAGS PUSH TRIGGER LAWS
Social media is not just changing individual cases but is finally engaging with the legal process itself. Movements like #MeToo in India, with journalist Priya Ramani’s brave testimony publicly against M.J. Akbar, resulted in real FIRs, policy changes, and, in some cases, judgments.
In Priya Ramani v. M.J. Akbar (2021), the court observed that a woman’s dignity cannot be subjected to a man’s reputation. That judgment didn’t only seem like a personal win for her. It felt like a realization that we were transforming how we think about sexual harassment and how we think about justice, workplace policies, and more broadly, justice.[7]
Through these movements, old laws are being reshaped, and institutions find themselves pressed to revisit their policies. Social media isn’t just a space; it’s a vehicle.
LAW, LOOPHOLES, AND A RACE TO CATCH UP
The reality is that while society has started to evolve, law has begun catching up. The IT Act of 2000 tried to regulate cyberspace, but let’s face it, while it does address some things, it was not designed for deepfakes, revenge porn, or hordes of viral hate speech.
For example, consider the case of X v. Union of India (2021) dealt with by the Delhi High Court. The Court has ordered worldwide takedowns of non-consensual content, a major step but also a reminder that our digital laws are very disjointed. Judges are being asked to apply old statutes in new, increasingly complex, and untested digital contexts.[8]
JUSTICE VS. VIRALITY
Yes, of course, social media creates avenues to speak for marginalized groups—Dalits, women, LGBTQ+ people, and victims of state violence in their workplaces. Yet, virality does not always equal truth; a single emotional post can destroy reputations without facts or context. This tension between online narratives and judicial fairness has also troubled the courts. In Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012),[9] The Supreme Court cautioned that uncontrolled media reporting during trials could prejudice proceedings and infringe the right to a fair trial under Article 21. Likewise, in R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009),[10] The Court stressed that media trials compromise judicial integrity, and in State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997),[11] It declared that trial by press or public agitation is the “antithesis of the rule of law.” As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has aptly observed, “Technology can be used as a means for empowerment and not exclusion or oppression .”[12] The tool that affords voice can just as easily silence it.
CONCLUSION
Social media has undeniably redefined the contours of justice in modern India. It has democratized legal discourse, amplified marginalized voices, and even spurred institutional reform. Yet, it has also blurred the line between awareness and prejudice, empowerment and misuse, dialogue and digital lynching. Courts and legislatures are still racing to adapt laws designed for a different era to the challenges of instant virality and unfiltered expression.
Justice, at its core, must remain rooted in fairness, due process, and truth—values that risk being overshadowed in a world where hashtags can travel faster than court orders. Social media can illuminate blind spots in our system, but it cannot become a substitute for it.
Ultimately, justice should not be a race between the courtroom and the timeline. As participants in this digital ecosystem, we carry a responsibility: to engage with sensitivity, to share with caution, and to remember that while a post can trend in seconds, the pursuit of justice is a deliberate and careful process. The real challenge, then, is not choosing between justice and virality, but ensuring that justice survives in an age of virality.
References:
[1] ‘Sushant Singh Rajput Death Case: CBI Registers FIR, Takes Over Probe’ The Hindu (6 August 2020) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sushant-singh-rajput-death-case-cbi-registers-fir/article32274819.ece accessed 14 July 2025.
[2] Utkarsh Anand, ‘Bilkis Bano Case: Convicts’ Release Sparks Outrage, Raises Legal and Moral Questions’ Hindustan Times (16 August 2022) https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bilkis-bano-case-convicts-release-sparks-outrage-raises-legal-and-moral-questions-101660615428510.html accessed 14 July 2025.
[3] ‘Aryan Khan Drug Case: NCB Clears Shah Rukh Khan’s Son of All Charges’ The Hindu (27 May 2022) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/aryan-khan-drugs-case-ncb-clears-shah-rukh-khans-son-of-all-charges/article65465853.ece accessed 14 July 2025.
[4] Sahara India Real Estate Corp Ltd v Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012) 10 SCC 603.
[5] ‘Bois Locker Room: Delhi Police Say Instagram Group Chat Was Real, Investigations Underway’ The Indian Express (6 May 2020) https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/bois-locker-room-instagram-chat-real-delhi-police-6394562/ accessed 14 July 2025.
[6] Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 (SC).
[7] Priya Ramani v M J Akbar (2021) ACMM/01/2020, Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi.
[8] X v Union of India (2021) SCC OnLine Del 2309 (Del HC).
[9] Sahara India Real Estate Corp Ltd v Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012) 10 SCC 603 (SC).
[10] R K Anand v Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 (SC).
[11] State of Maharashtra v Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997) 8 SCC 386 (SC).
[12] Justice DY Chandrachud, ‘Technology and the Constitution of India’ (Justice HR Khanna Memorial Lecture, 26 February 2021, Supreme Court of India) https://www.sci.gov.in/pdf/Speeches/Speech%20of%20Justice%20DY%20Chandrachud%20at%20Justice%20HR%20Khanna%20Memorial%20Lecture.pdf accessed 14 July 2025.
