Social Media Trials: A Threat to the Rule of Law

Author: Sarthak, National Law University

In an era of digital immediacy, social media platforms have emerged as powerful tools for public discourse and awareness. However, this empowerment often crosses into dangerous territory when users conduct parallel "trials" of accused individuals, celebrities, and public figures—what is now globally recognized as social media trials. These online judgments, rendered long before the courts can decide, pose a significant threat to the rule of law, a foundational principle of any democratic society.

The rule of law mandates that every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court of law—an essential protection enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Yet, platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube increasingly witness viral posts, hashtags, and videos that pass judgment based on unverified content, hearsay, or emotionally charged narratives—often sidestepping formal legal processes.

The implications of such digital vigilantism are deeply troubling. Foremost, it undermines the accused's right to a fair trial—encompassing impartial adjudication, unbiased investigation, and the presumption of innocence. In Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court emphasized that judicial processes must remain unaffected by public and media commentary.

Another grave concern is the violation of the privacy and dignity of both accused and victims. The public spectacle around actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death serves as a prime example—where individuals were harassed, vilified, and criminalized online before formal investigations concluded. In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to privacy as a vital element of Article 21, one that must not be trampled by sensationalist narratives.

Legally, such media conduct can fall under contempt of court as defined by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly if it prejudices or interferes with the due process of justice. In Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012), the Court clarified that media coverage must not substitute the role of the judiciary and must balance the freedom of speech with the sanctity of legal proceedings.

While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of expression, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)—including contempt of court, defamation, and public order. Therefore, although open discussion and critique are vital in a democracy, prejudicial media trials must be restrained within the bounds of legality and fairness.

The Law Commission of India, in its 200th Report on "Trial by Media" (2006), strongly recommended a regulatory framework to prevent undue influence on the judicial process arising from media and public commentary.

Conclusion

Social media trials are a form of virtual mob justice, undermining the foundational principles of India's legal system. While social media can and should foster civic engagement, its misuse to prematurely judge legal matters must be addressed through robust legal reforms, public education, and ethical accountability. In both physical and digital spheres, the rule of law must prevail—even in the court of public opinion.