Social Media Trial: The Unsolicited Verdict

About the author: Jasnoor Kaur, B.Com. LLB(Hons.) 4th year, UILS, Panjab University.

The electronic media in course of history has time and again intervened in the judicial process. And now it is not just limited to television, with the entry of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter the situation has worsened. The inadequacy of the justice system is often used as a justification for the adoption of a social media-based justice system, the so-called “public courts‟. Our justice system just like all other systems is by no means perfect. But that does not mean #MeToo #nossrnobollywood is the answer. Several studies have shown that people on social media are guided mainly by the controversial component of a post rather than its truth, making it very hard to correlate it with actual justice.

In The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread – and Why They Stop, Adam Kucharski talks about a strategy called “astroturfing”, wherewith careful targeting and amplification, social media can create “widespread popularity for specific policies”, mimicking grassroots support. Astroturfing allows orchestrated news to attain organic reach to numbers and then it just takes a life of its own. Such social media trials follow no rules as in the recent case of Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, we saw astroturfing in action. Social media brigades spoke about how nepotism and cabals in Bollywood had brought about this tragedy. Nobody in Rajput’s family or friends‟ circle corroborated this version, but it raged on. Rhea Chakraborty (sushant singh rajput’s girlfriend) was posed guilty by social media that she “drugged him” under the pretext of treating him for depression, she swindled him and siphoned off his money before walking out on him, all of it before procuring any real evidence. But that is the role of investigative agencies, not kangaroo courts on the internet or on television. She was even trolled, among other things, for choosing to wear a salwar kameez in her video message.

The charges are damning, serious and in terms of public perception impact – perhaps irreversible. Rajput’s reported battle with clinical depression/bipolar disorder or that a 34-year-old man would have agency of his own in his life decisions were deliberately overlooked. Larger and more sordid conspiracy theories were attached to this narrative. We must remember that Rhea Chakraborty has neither been pronounced guilty of abetment to suicide, nor murder. We do not have the right to sentence her in our social media courtrooms.

Social media has found its way into every component and part of our lives.

On average Indians spend around 2.5-4 hours daily on social media and maybe the rising usage can largely be linked to falling in internet and data costs. Many have even understood that social media is a very easy way to sway and manipulate an individual personality negatively or positively. In very recent times, there have been incidents of verdicts being passed by people on their social handles, they tend to make a person guilty without even having any substantial evidence even though the law says innocent until proven guilty.

The twin murders of 13-year-old Aarushi Talwar and 45-year-old Hemraj Banjade in Noida. It was a crime that caught the imagination of the country especially when her parents, Dr Rajesh Talwar and Noopur Talwar were named as the prime suspects. The Allahabad court acquitted the couple after four years of imprisonment, but what we remember is the bungled forensic evidence or the salacious cocktail of speculative theories including honour killing and wife-swapping? That is because people like us were only too willing to believe that people like us would turn on a daughter they clearly loved. In spite of a solid counter-narrative in their favour, the Talwars will forever remain tainted. The prejudicial behaviour of people on social media is another reason. Prejudice is a pre-judgment without having adequate knowledge of the subject matter. Prejudice often relies on stereotypes and biasedness. Recently, A teenage girl made allegations on social media against a boy of raping her and the moment the story broke out, it led to people posting things in support of the girl and started to defame the boy and ended up declaring him guilty without acknowledging the whole factual case. These claims remained in the headlines on various social media handles for several days, followed by the boy committing suicide. The next thing we see is that people started to turn their backs away from the girl and started to share a thread named my brother is not a rapist.

What we need to understand here is that Social-Media has the power to influence and revolutionize the masses, with that fact on hand the responsibility of every individual active on the internet increases. A biased comment made by someone can build or malign the image of an individual. Doubtlessly the Indian Constitution grants the right to freedom of speech and expression along with the freedom of the press under clause 19(1) (a) but, there are certain restrictions to its applicability. Social media instantly turns alive with gossip, trolls, and threats, and people will suddenly have an opinion about an unknown being which is why the assertion of someone being guilty until proven is prohibited by the law. [1] The importance of social media as we are aware, that everything has its pros and cons and so has social media. Social Media has connected people. It has given people a platform to share their reviews and opinions. Social media has been the voice of the suppressed and fearful. People can voice their opinions and reach out to a large group audience easily and it is no less of a fact that many scandals in the past were uncovered with the use of social media. Social media is one of the freest in the world in terms of legal constraints.

But is it right to allow social media to reincarnate itself into a courtroom? As a result, the accused, that should be assumed innocent, is presumed as a criminal leaving all his/her rights and liberty redressed. The justice system which we have been following states that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. To further knowledge the law is not governed by emotions. While displaying their emotions the masses forget that they are putting a good amount of pressure on the person who will be presiding over the cases. Social media should not be the medium of passing judgments by unauthorized beings. However, we still need to be more educated and aware legally of the risks it poses.

LEGAL ASPECT:

Legal Outlook In the past year, a law commission report even suggested a law to tackle trials by media. A trial which unprecedently goes over social media can be a contempt of court and even defamation in certain cases. The commission suggested the prohibition of elements that can prove to be prejudicial towards the accused. In this era of social media, someone orchestrates a story and puts it on social media and it becomes viral within hours and reaches billions of people, it deeply affects the privacy of a person and causes loss of dignity even though the accused might be guilty but the law does not iterate that the person should be prosecuted by the social media. Social media was a platform made for discussion but rather it has become a platform for hatred, fake news, and bullying.

CASE LAW REFERENCE:

In the case of Uma Khurana, a teacher in a Delhi school was almost lynched by the mob on the suspicion that she had allegedly forced her students into prostitution however she was acquitted due to lack of evidence. This is what social media can do to a person, even the innocents are not spared in many cases Also in the case of Afzal Guru where evidence was only circumstantial, and there was no evidence that he belonged to any terrorist organization. It is in this context Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once said “It doesn’t matter if justice is on your side. You have to depict your position as just.” This statement goes on to show how powerful media is and how quickly it can create a perception in people’s minds. The solution to this is only a proper legal framework that disseminates awareness about the law and people must be held accountable for what they do on social media.

Disclaimer: The author undertakes that the work submitted is an original creation of the author. The author has not previously submitted the article for the purpose of publication. Any similarity with previously published content is not intentional. The author shall be personally liable for any infringement of intellectual property of any person, organization, government or institution.