INTRODUCTION: JUSTICE IN THE AGE OF HASHTAGS
Imagine awakening to find one’s name trending across social media platforms, accompanied by widespread allegations of criminality, circulation of personal photographs, harassment of family members in public comment sections, and professional consequences such as inquiries from employers and social isolation—all taking place before the start of a judicial trial. This scenario, far from fictional, reflects the lived reality of many accused persons in contemporary India. In the era of Instagram reels, YouTube commentary, and trending hashtags, public judgment is often delivered instantaneously—driven by emotion, speed, and a lack of procedural restraint.
This phenomenon is commonly referred to as trial by media. However, its present manifestation is more pernicious: an online trial conducted not merely by institutional media, but by millions of ordinary users who collectively assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
WHAT DOES “TRIAL BY MEDIA” MEAN IN PRACTICE?
In legal theory, trial by media refers to the public discussion and portrayal of a case while it is still pending. In practical terms, it manifests through sensationalist YouTube videos claiming to expose the “truth,” Instagram stories demanding immediate arrests, and Twitter threads purporting to analyse “evidence.” Such discourse operates entirely outside the framework of procedural law and disregards the foundational principle of the presumption of innocence. Nevertheless, it exerts a disproportionate influence on public perception, often eclipsing the authority of judicial determinations.
FROM TELEVISION STUDIOS TO SMARTPHONES: A STRUCTURAL SHIFT
Historically, trial by media was largely confined to televised debates, wherein anchors moderated discussions and audiences remained passive observers. The contemporary landscape has radically transformed this dynamic. Social media platforms have decentralised content creation, enabling any individual to publish accusations, speculate on guilt, and pass judgment. The principal danger is no longer isolated misinformation, but mass misinformation—repeated and amplified to such an extent that conjecture acquires the appearance of truth.
REAL-LIFE INSTANCES UNDERMINING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
THE SUSHANT SINGH RAJPUT CASE
The death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput represents one of the most striking examples of online trial by media in India. For several months, individuals were publicly declared guilty, private communications were leaked, and media debates functioned as daily tribunals. Social media users conducted parallel “investigations,” often driven by speculation rather than evidence. Subsequent findings by official investigative agencies revealed no criminal culpability; however, by that time, irreparable reputational damage had already occurred.[1] The case starkly illustrates how public sentiment can overwhelm legal truth.
THE AARUSHI TALWAR CASE
Similarly, in the Aarushi Talwar case, intense media scrutiny significantly shaped public perception. Before judicial resolution, the parents were portrayed as perpetrators, speculation was presented as fact, and sensational headlines influenced collective opinion. Although the parents were ultimately acquitted, the case raises a critical question: whether legal vindication can truly restore dignity once public condemnation has taken root.[2]
THE EROSION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Criminal jurisprudence rests upon the cardinal principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court of law.[3] This principle, however, finds little respect in the digital public sphere. Silence is interpreted as admission, procedural delays are framed as conspiracies, and complexity is reduced to suspicion. Such an environment converts public discourse into a form of extrajudicial punishment, fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law.
ARTICLE 21 AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
The Supreme Court of India has consistently affirmed that the right to a fair trial is an integral component of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,[4] which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. A fair trial entails impartial adjudication, protection of witnesses, independence of the judiciary, and preservation of the dignity of the accused.[5] When social media platforms conduct parallel trials, this constitutional equilibrium is destabilised, rendering the administration of justice vulnerable to external pressures.
JUDICIAL NEUTRALITY AND THE PRESSURE OF PUBLIC OPINION
While judges are institutionally trained to remain impartial, they do not operate in social isolation. Nationwide trending hashtags, aggressive media scrutiny of judicial timelines, and accusations of bias by influential digital personalities contribute to an environment of sustained pressure. Even where judicial independence is maintained, the perception of justice risks erosion, which is itself detrimental to public confidence in the legal system.
CONTEMPT OF COURT IN THE DIGITAL ERA
Indian law prohibits acts that interfere with the due administration of justice, including prejudicial commentary on pending cases.[6] Under the doctrine of contempt of court. Courts have repeatedly cautioned media organisations against influencing ongoing trials.[7] However, the effectiveness of this framework is increasingly strained in the digital age, where anonymous accounts, viral content, and millions of individual users operate beyond traditional regulatory mechanisms.
REPUTATION DAMAGE: A PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CONVICTION
Once an individual is publicly labelled as guilty in the digital domain, that stigma often becomes permanent. Even after acquittal, online search results continue to display allegations, archived videos resurface periodically, and public memory remains unforgiving. While courts may deliver judgments, they lack the means to restore reputational dignity. This phenomenon effectively imposes a form of punishment without conviction, undermining the rehabilitative and corrective objectives of criminal justice.
INFLUENCERS AS EXTRA-LEGAL ADJUDICATORS
A significant contemporary concern is the emergence of social media influencers who assume the role of legal commentators without possessing formal legal training. By selectively interpreting FIRs, analysing CCTV footage, and delivering conclusive opinions for engagement metrics, such individuals exercise disproportionate influence. Unlike professional journalists, they are not bound by ethical codes, thereby facilitating the spread of legally unsound narratives.
FREE SPEECH AND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic governance and includes the right to critique the justice system. However, this freedom is not absolute. The Constitution permits reasonable restrictions where speech prejudices judicial proceedings or infringes upon individual reputation. Speech that declares guilt, incites harassment, or disseminates unverified allegations transcends the bounds of constitutional protection and constitutes a misuse of free expression.[8]
WHY PEOPLE PARTICIPATE IN ONLINE TRIALS
Public participation in online trials is often driven by systemic delays in judicial processes, declining institutional trust, and heightened emotional responses to sensational cases.[9] This public impatience with judicial delay has also been acknowledged institutionally, with reform bodies recognising that systemic inefficiencies often fuel extra-legal responses to perceived injustice. From a socio-legal perspective, such participation reflects frustration with procedural inefficiencies rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. However, substituting institutional adjudication with digital outrage undermines the very rationale of legal process, which exists precisely to temper emotion with reason, evidence, and due process. Expediency achieved through social media condemnation does not equate to justice; rather, it erodes the legitimacy of lawful adjudication.
THE WAY FORWARD
There is an urgent need for:
- Clearly articulated norms governing online reporting of pending judicial matters.
- Enhanced accountability mechanisms for digital platforms.
- Public legal education regarding the consequences of disseminating prejudicial content.
- Judicially framed guidelines regulating digital media conduct in sub judice cases.
CONCLUSION: JUSTICE CANNOT BE A TREND
Courts function on evidence, statutory interpretation, and judicial restraint—not on virality or public sentiment. When justice is crowdsourced through social media timelines, the rule of law is imperceptibly weakened. While digital platforms have democratised expression, justice demands restraint, fairness, and procedural discipline. If judicial authority yields to comment sections, society risks losing its moral and constitutional compass. Law was never designed to gratify collective anger; it exists to restrain it. Neglecting this principle may result in victories in online debates, but it will inevitably lead to the quiet erosion of justice itself.
Author(s) Name: Garv Yadav (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University)
References:
[1] Rhea Chakraborty v State of Bihar, Criminal Writ Petition No 225 of 2020 (SC).
[2] Nupur Talwar v Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 1 SCC 1.
[3] R.K. Anand v Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106.
[4] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[5] Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158.
[6] Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
[7] Sahara India Real Estate Corp Ltd v Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012) 10 SCC 603.
[8] Constitution of India 1950, arts 19(1)(a), 19(2).
[9] Law Commission of India, Reforms in the Judiciary—Some Suggestions (Report No 230, 2009).
