Supreme Court’s Vigilance: Addressing Social Media Misuse and Contempt Proceedings

Recently, Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud recounted an incident where he became the victim of severe online harassment and trolling on social media platforms. This incident sheds light on a broader issue that the Supreme Court of India has been increasingly concerned about – the misuse of social media platforms. The Court has expressed deep alarm over the proliferation of factually incorrect and baseless statements circulating on social media, especially regarding pending court cases.

Taking a firm stance against such misuse, the Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against Assam legislator Karim Uddin Barbhuiya for his misleading Facebook post related to a case that was pending judgment. The Court voiced its dismay at the growing trend of social media misuse, emphasizing how it undermines the integrity of the judicial system and spreads misinformation among the public.

In an order issued on April 8, a bench comprising justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi expressed concern over the rampant misuse of social media platforms to comment on ongoing court matters. While acknowledging that judges are accustomed to facing criticism, the bench emphasized the need to address comments or posts that distort facts or fail to disclose accurate information about ongoing legal proceedings.

Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud’s own experience of being targeted on social media underscores the seriousness of the issue. Despite facing unwarranted backlash, he expressed confidence in the judiciary’s commitment to serving the public diligently.

In a separate case, the Court initiated contempt proceedings against Sonai MLA Karim Uddin Barbhuiya for his Facebook post, falsely claiming a favorable court ruling in an election petition. Although the Court eventually ruled in favor of Barbhuiya, it also reprimanded him for contempt due to the misleading nature of his post.

The Supreme Court stressed the gravity of attempts to prejudice legal proceedings or interfere with the administration of justice through social media. Consequently, it directed Barbhuiya to appear in court for the next hearing, indicating a proactive approach to address such misconduct.

Overall, these developments highlight the Supreme Court’s proactive stance in addressing the misuse of social media platforms and its commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial process.