Need to regulate social media, says judge who sought public apology from Nupur Sharma for Udaipur killing

Social media is being used to ventilate personal opinions against the judges instead of providing opinions criticising the judgements, he said

A Supreme Court judge, Justice J B Pardiwala on Sunday emphasised on the need for regulation of digital and social media especially in “sensitive” sub-judice cases, saying trial by media is an undue interference in the judicial process and the Parliament should bring laws for its regulation.

Social media is being used to ventilate personal opinions against the judges instead of providing opinions criticising the judgements. This is what harming the judiciary in the country, he said.

"Personal attacks on judges for their judgements lead to a dangerous scenario where the judges have to think about what media thinks instead of what the law really thinks. This harms the rule of law," he said.

Also Read | Her loose tongue set entire nation on fire: Supreme Court slams Nupur Sharma over Prophet Mohammed remarks

The judge, while hearing last week along with Justice Surya Kant, a plea by suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma for consolidation of multiple FIRs for her remarks on Prophet Muhammad, had said she was responsible for Udaipur killing of a tailor and must apologise to the country. Both the judges of the bench had faced vicious attack on social media after the hearing.

On Sunday, Justice Pardiwala was speaking here on theme 'Vox Populi vs Rule of Law: the Supreme Court of India' during the second Justice H R Khanna Memorial National symposium.

"Let me also talk about the role of media. A trial is supposed to be carried out by the courts. Trials by digital media are undue interference for the judiciary. This crosses the "laxman Rekha" and is all the more problematic when only half truth is pursued," he said.

Justice Pardiwala said he is a firm believer that there are no exceptions to rule of law and the opinion of the public hardly matters when it comes to judicial verdicts.

"Judicial verdicts must not be under the influence of public opinion," he said.

Maintaining that the rule of law is a distinguishable feature in India, the judge said, "In a democracy, we agree to live by the decisions of the court. It does not mean that court decisions are right, we still agree to live by them."

He cited the Navtej Singh Johar case judgement, which decriminalised homosexuality here as the "finest example" wherein the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law as opposed to the opinion of the public.

He also referred to the Sabrimala judgement where the friction between the rule of law and public opinion came to forefront. "Let every person remember that the holy book is the Constitution of India," Justice Pardiwala said, quoting the judgement.