New Delhi, Mar 21: The Supreme Court has expressed its concern over the trend of people instantly uploading videos shot on mobile phone on social media and said that such activities pose a serious threat to a fair trial.
The remark was made by a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi on Friday.
The bench was hearing a PIL that alleged that police upload videos and photographs of the accused on social media and create a bias in people’s minds.
The PIL argued that the court, in another case, had already asked the states to frame guidelines for media briefing by the police, and it would cover social media posts as well.
The bench suggested the petitioner Hemendra Patel to await the outcome of those guidelines, and agreed with senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Patel, that every person nowadays with a mobile phone has become media.
The senior counsel flagged the recent trend of police posting the images of accused persons being handcuffed, tied by ropes, paraded, forced to kneel, etc, on social media, which, apart from causing an affront to personal dignity, adds to the public bias.
Justice Bagchi told Sankaranarayanan that instead of talking of police, which have been given three months to formulate a standard operating procedure on police media briefings, he should seek a comprehensive mechanism for police, conventional, and social media.
The judge said, on a larger canvas, the court believes police should not create a bias against the accused through briefings.
“Police can be restrained through the SOP. But what about the media, especially social media, and the public? Can they be restrained? Comparatively, TV channels are much more restrained, even though one might disagree with their views,” Justice Bagchi observed.
The present issue may require broader consideration extending beyond the immediate question raised in the petition, he said.
Justice Bagchi told Sankaranarayanan, “We understand that police briefings to the media must be responsible and reasonable, and must not be exposed to bias, because in a criminal justice system, the investigating agency is neither pro-victim nor pro-accused.”
Sankaranarayanan pointed out that the issue of “media trial” was first addressed by the Supreme Court in the Sahara versus SEBI decision of 2012.
Justice Bagchi said the concern is of police authorities getting carried away during media briefings and the emerging risks of media trials in pending criminal cases.
“It is the duty of the investigating agency to conduct an independent investigation to unravel the truth. To ensure that a balance is maintained, the manual is a very positive step. The manual will restrain the police from making over-enthusiastic statements which may be inferable with regard to matters that are subject to adjudication in a forensic and dispassionate manner.
“However, what happens when such an exercise, though restraining the police, is not able to remove the cloud or the vitiated atmosphere created through third-party indulgence, where sections of the media go on spinning narratives either way, resulting in a media trial that completely subverts the rule of law,” he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there are tabloids on social media which act like “blackmailers.”
“There are some platforms which exist only virtually, which are blackmailers. Blackmailing is an understatement,” he said.
Justice Bagchi said, “The problem is the atomised social media.”
CJI Kant said, “It is akin to or a different facet of digital arrest. There is a tendency in towns and cities away from the national capital where people flaunt their credentials as media persons and boldly display it on their vehicles for ulterior designs.”
Sankaranarayanan told the bench he knew a few advocates who sport ‘Supreme Court Advocate’ stickers on their cars to avoid paying tolls on highways.
The bench suggested that since the issue of fair trial required a comprehensive approach, it would be better if the petition is withdrawn and refiled with an enlarged scope after April, when the guidelines or SOP for police would have been implemented.
Taking the court’s suggestion, Sankaranarayanan agreed to withdraw the matter.
