New Delhi: Supreme Court Justice J.B. Pardiwala on Sunday called on Parliament to consider introducing appropriate legislative and regulatory provisions to regulate digital and social media as trials by digital media cause undue interference in the process of justice dispensation, as he cited various instances of media crossing "Laxman Rekha".
Justice Pardiwala, who was part of the Supreme Court bench, which slammed former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma for "igniting" the country and damaging the social fabric with her remark on Prophet Muhammad, emphasised on regulating digital and social media in the country to preserve the rule of law.
Media trials are not healthy for rule of law, he said in his address on the topic "Vox Populi vs. Rule of Law: Supreme Court of India" in the 2nd Justice H.R. Khanna Memorial National Symposium. "Regulation of digital and social media especially in the context of sensitive trials which are sub judice, must be dwelt upon by the Parliament by introducing appropriate legislative and regulatory provisions in this regard," he said.
He said a trial is essentially a process to be carried out by courts, however in the modern-day context, trials by digital media are an undue interference in the process of justice dispensation and cross that "Laxman Rekha" many times.
Justice Pardiwalwa said a section of people, possessing half-truths, and scrutinizing the judicial process "is a real challenge to the dispensation of justice through the rule of law. Social and digital media nowadays primarily resort to express personalised opinions against judges per say rather than a constructive critical appraisal of their judgments".
He said constitutional courts have graciously accepted informed dissent and cited the personalized agenda-driven attacks on judges. "This is where digital and social media needs to be mandatorily regulated in the country to preserve the rule of law and our Constitution. Attacks on judges for their judgments lead to a dangerous scenario," he said.
Justice Pardiwala said India still can't be classified as a complete and matured democracy, and social and digital media is employed frequently to politicise legal and constitutional issues. Citing the judgment in Ayodhya title dispute, he pointed out that as the case was nearing the verdict, there were political overtones. "Judges deciding the dispute may get a bit shaken, which is antithetic to the rule of law and not healthy as well."
Also read: We issued notice to Nupur Sharma, she was questioned: Delhi Police after SC's rebuke
He emphasized that social media is overrun by people "possessing half-truths" and those who don't understand rule of law, evidence, judicial process, and its inherent limitations. Citing cases of serious offenses, Justice Pardiwala said the immense power of social and digital media is resorted to precipitating a perception of guilt or innocence of the accused even before the trial is over.
Justice Pardiwala said he was a firm believer in the rule of law and had no exceptions and that the opinion of the public hardly mattered when it came to judicial verdicts and added judicial verdicts could not be reflections of the influence of public opinion on the court.
Nupur Sharma had gone to the Supreme Court demanding that all the First Information Reports registered against her across the country should be clubbed together and transferred to Delhi. In her petition, she also said she and her family have been facing security threats and they need protection. On July 1, the Supreme Court on Friday came down heavily on suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma and said that she and "her loose tongue" has set the entire country on fire and she single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala slammed Sharma for her statement made during a TV news channel debate while referring to the Udaipur incident, where two men murdered a tailor, said her outburst is responsible for the unfortunate incident.
Rejecting Sharma's request to transfer all the FIRs registered against her in many states for her alleged remarks on Prophet Mohammad, to Delhi for investigation, the bench told her counsel Maninder Singh, "No, Mr. Singh. The conscience of the court is not satisfied. We can't mould the law accordingly".
Senior advocate Maninder Singh appearing for Sharma then withdrew the plea. During the hearing, when Singh told the bench that Sharma is facing threat to her life, Justice Surya Kant said, "She has a threat or she has become a security threat?"
"The way she has ignited emotions across the country. This lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country," the bench said.
"We saw the debate on how she was incited. But the way she said all this and later says she was a lawyer with ten years standing? It is shameful. She should apologize to the whole country," the apex court said. The bench also took a grim view of the TV news channel for hosting the discussion on the Gyanvapi case in which Sharma, who was one of the guests, made the controversial remarks. (With Agency Inputs)
