Sensationalization of Judiciary : Ill-effects of streaming court proceedings online

Post COVID-19 pandemic, Indian Judiciary had begun online streaming of courtroom proceedings. The Supreme Court of India was the first one to allow online streaming of constitutional matters in bid to improve transparency of the courtroom, later many High Courts adopted the same model. The motive of Indian Judiciary was dual, first, they wanted to improve the transparency in proceedings and second, they wanted to impart legal awareness among the masses.  One can say that they have succeeded in doing so, as of now, the official YouTube channel of the Supreme Court of India has around 1.68Lakh subscribers and more than 52Lakh views and similarly official YouTube channels of different High Courts also have subscriber and views count in lakhs. It is often said that the internet is a dual edged sword, it has the potential to make or destroy one’s reputation in matter of hours, and even the Judiciary is unable to protect itself.

The Supreme Court of India

Recently, the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was trolled on the internet by circulating a doctored video. The video was captioned as, CJI left the courtroom hearing in between when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was arguing on electoral bond, whereas in reality he was adjusting his chair. Similarly, multiple videos of Justice Rohit Arya and Justice Vivek Agarwal from High Court of Madhya Pradesh are circulating online in which their conduct is strict, these videos manifest an idea that justice can be only achieved if judges are strict, whereas in reality every case has its own nuances and judges’ approach is based upon it. In these videos, judges are observed questioning the bar intensely, but usually the motive behind asking such questions is to understand certain facts in more detail. When such video clips are posted online without contextual background of the case, the viewers get a distorted idea of courtroom proceedings.

Example of Over-Dramatic Caption on YouTube Video of Judicial Proceeding in Madhya Pradesh High Court

The courtroom proceedings are usually long which might range to multiple days, but many unauthorised channels take cut out sections from the video of these proceedings and give them an overdramatic caption to garner views on video streaming platforms and social media platforms which hampers the public image of judicial proceedings.

Problems associated with tailored videos present on video streaming platforms: -

1. Eroding Public trust : In various cases, the state is a party, and sometimes procedural lapses do happen by a public servant in-charge, as a result they are thoroughly disciplined by the bench and sometimes even punished according to provisions of the law. It is worth noting that when these tailored videos are circulated on streaming platforms, the viewer gets a generalized idea that a public servant is always negligent and irresponsible, whereas in reality it is not always true.
2. Political/Ideological leaning is determined : India is in the midst of a digital revolution, as a result, first time internet users are open to a plethora of content. Once a person consumes a certain type of data, then the rest is taken care of by algorithm. In recent years, the Indian Judiciary has decided on many politically sensitive topics, such as, Sabarimala case, Aligarh Muslim University case and so on. It's interesting to note that proceedings of these cases were streamed online on various platforms, and comment sections of these videos were not only polarized but also the political leaning of the bar and the bench were debated upon. While this might seem to be trivial in the short term, it would certainly has ramification on judicial independence as every statement made by a judicial officer would be interpreted through a political lens.
3. Video clips used as monetary source : Streaming of judicial proceedings are originally posted on verified channels, but since these videos are in public domain, they can be downloaded and re-uploaded on various social media sites with infuriating captions added by the uploader, which helps the video to gain traction and ultimately get monetized. Its important to note that, these online streaming videos of judicial proceedings are official records of court proceedings, they can’t be tailored and used by a private citizen to earn money. It is evident that there is no regulating body to look after this issue, so intent of streaming these videos i.e. to increase transparency and legal awareness is lost when these videos are tailored and uploaded to garner views and enable monetisation of private social media accounts.

If so, is the streaming of judicial proceedings a bad idea?

Clearly the answer is NO. The issue is, since there are no adequate mechanisms to regulate these tailored videos, few delinquent individuals are using them to create a sensational video which can garner views and likes which are ultimately used to earn money.

What are the possible remedies to deal with these issues?

• Allowing only verified accounts to post videos of judicial proceedings. Currently official channels of the Supreme Court of India and various High Court are live streaming the proceedings, these channels are managed under directions of the e-committee of Supreme Court, they can rope in the digital media industry experts who can help the courts to use copy right tools of video streaming platforms effectively.
• Instructing the video streaming platform and social media platforms to demonetise all the videos released by judiciary, this might limit the reach of these videos but sensationalization of judicial proceedings can be prevented, thus disincentivizing those who want to earn quick money by posting overdramatic captioned videos of judicial proceedings. 
• Taking action under provision 9 of Model rules for live streaming and recording of court proceedings issued by Supreme Court of India in 2022. Though there are many channels who violate these guidelines, a symbolic action can be taken against few by court, thus creating a deterrent effect.

Conclusion

To summarise, the initial motive of the judiciary behind live streaming was to increase public knowledge and foster transparency, but the data from Socialblade.com (a public database which provides analytics of YouTube channels) clearly indicates that videos of judicial proceedings are used by many unauthorised accounts to earn money. The issue of unauthorised monetisation of official records of court proceedings can be easily dealt with by force of law, but the tarnishing of the public image of the judiciary and law enforcement agency can’t be reversed. These unauthorised accounts posting sensational videos to earn quick money should be stopped as soon as possible to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.

Beyond Boundaries: Torts and Environmental Rights in India's Legal Landscape

A tort is an act or omission that constitutes a civil wrong for which a court can hold someone accountable that results in injury to another person. The word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.

The main objective of torts is to hold accountable to those persons who are liable for causing harm or injury and make them compensate for their act. The compensation can be anything like monetary compensation, injunction or restitute.

Torts are usually meant to protect private rights of individuals and provide relief to injury caused by violation of these private rights. The very next question which arises is, what is a private right? The private rights are the rights which are not conferred by the government i.e. these are the rights which we naturally inherent as a human, the objective of torts is to compensate the victim rather than punishing the wrongdoer, unlike the statutory laws which are meant not just to compensate the victim but also punish the wrong doer and set an precedent to discourage others from committing the same offense. Torts are usually uncodified principles evolved out of judicial precedents, these precedents are applied as per the case facts and applicability of the tort.

Applicability of Torts in Environmental issues

As mentioned earlier, torts aim to offer redress for the infringement of private rights. However, when discussing environmental issues, even if a court case revolves around the violation of individual rights, the scale of the problem is significant enough that it impacts everyone in the vicinity or even the population at large, so it is not just infringement of private rights but also violation of public rights.

Though torts deal violation of private rights, Environmental issues can be taken up under torts like Nuisance, Negligence, Trespass, Strict Liability, Constitutional Tort etc.

1. Nuisance can be divided into two parts, Private Nuisance:  A private nuisance is an activity or condition that interferes with the use and enjoyment of privately owned lands, without an actual invasion of the property. Public Nuisance: Public nuisance is causing harm to the morals, safety, or health of the community, is deemed an offense against the state. Examples of such activities include blocking a public road, contaminating air and water, running a house of prostitution, and storing explosives, all of which are considered public nuisances.

   When we talk about nuisance in environmental context we are usually talking about Public nuisance.

2. Negligence: Negligence may be defined as breach of duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would, do or doing something which a Prudent reasonable man would not do, actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or observing ordinary care and skill toward a person to whom the defendant owes a duty of observing ordinary care and skill.

   In the context of environmental issues, a company may be held negligent if its activities result in environmental damage or harm to individuals. This may include cases of soil contamination, water pollution, or other environmental harm.

3. Trespass: In torts, trespass to land means interference with another person's right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to an individual, and trespass to land specifically addresses actions that involve unauthorized entry onto another person's land or property

4. Strict Liability: Strict liability is the principle according to which the individual is held liable for his action irrespective of his intent. In other words, under strict liability principle the plaintiff doesn’t need to prove whether the defendant had a wrong intent or his act was caused due to negligence, the defendant should compensate duly for his act.

5. Constitutional torts: The core of constitutional tort lawsuits is the infringement of rights, which are typically derived from the Bill of Rights or other constitutional clauses that shield people from excessive or improper use of government power. The idea is especially important in legal systems where people can file lawsuits against the government for violating their constitutional rights.

Environmental Cases in India which used principle of torts to deliver justice

In India time and again Courts had used torts principles to deliver justice which not just provided compensation to the victim but also protected environment and enforced certain principle like ‘Polluter must pay’ or ‘Right to clean environment’. The right to clean environment falls under Article 21 of Indian Constitution

Examples of environmental case laws in India which used torts principle-

1.  Endosulfan Case : Kerala Government until 2011 used to spray Endosulfan pesticide in cashew, cotton, tea, paddy, fruits plantation to protect it from pest, but the ill effect of this pesticide spray was the population that lived here suffered various serious medical issues. When the matter reached to Supreme Court of India, the court held that State of Kerala was liable for the plight of the affected people and ordered the government to pay monetary compensation to the affected population. Here court applied the various principles of torts like Negligence, Strict liability and constitutional torts.

2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India refers to series of environmental cases brought to Supreme Court by Public interest litigation. In these series of cases the doctrine of absolute liability and polluter must pay evolved in Indian context. In one of the judgment the then Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati said that, “The measure of compensation in such cases must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have deterrent effect.”

   Also in these series of cases court not just awarded compensation to the victims of the cases but also extend the purview of Article 21 of Indian constitution by incorporating Right to clean environment under Article 21. So in the future cases the plaintiff can not only demand for compensation but also demand justice under constitutional torts. 

3. Vellore citizens’ welfare forum v. Union of India: The case facts were, in State of Tamil Nadu many tanneries and industries were operating which were releasing untreated water in water bodies, due to which the drinking water of the city was getting polluted and the agricultural land was also getting degraded due to underground water pollution leaving the land unfit for agricultural purposes. Industries were contending that the safe limits standard given for untreated water disposal by the State Pollution Control Board were unjustifiable.

   Here the Supreme Court gave decision in favour of plaintiff and also applied the principle of strict or absolute liability but court also directed the state pollution control borad and state government to have “Precautionary Principles” in place to not let such incident happen again. The Precautionary principle can be align with a tort principle i.e. Breach of Duty of Care which is a fundamental unit of Negligence. 

4. Ram Bhaj Singh v. Babulal: In this case plaintiff was a practicing doctor and in front of his clinic defendant had built a Stone crushing machine unit due to which the plaintiff suffered noise pollution, air pollution and physical inconvenience. The Court categorized this as a disturbance caused by noise, deemed manageable within the scope of tort law. In various other instances, courts have adopted analogous reasoning when addressing issues concerning dust, fumes, and similar factors.

Conclusion

Finally, the relationship between environmental justice and tort law in India provides a way forward for compensation, responsibility, and the preservation of our natural heritage. These judicial precedents highlight the changing role of the law in shaping a sustainable future in addition to offering compensation for harm. Towards a peaceful cohabitation with our planet, the principles of torts serve as a lighthouse for us to follow as we negotiate the complex web of environmental concerns. 

UCC: Search for unity in a Diverse India

 The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a proposal in India that is aimed at replacing personal, traditional, customary and religious laws and practices with a common statute applicable to all irrespective of their religion, caste, gender etc.

Civil laws are broadly categorized in two types: Financial laws and Family laws. While discussing about UCC, we focus mainly on Family laws.

EVOLUTION OF PERSONAL LAWS

Ancient India was mostly governed by Brahamanical order of society and laws books like Yajnavalkyasmriti, Manusmriti and Naradsmriti, among these, they governed the social order, religious duty, traditions etc. which were socially accepted morals and legal norms in ancient India.

Given the Hindu majority in medieval India, Muslim rulers adopted a middle ground approach. Hindus' civil matters followed their personal laws, while Muslims were guided by canonical texts like the Quran, Hadith, Sunnah, and Fatwa-e-Alamgir. All state subjects were subjected to uniform criminal laws based on retributive justice.

Law reforms were started in India while it was ruled by the English. Civil law were untouched, whereas criminal law changed from retributive to rehabilitative. The Gentoo Code of Warren Hastings, compiled Hindu legal texts and were used to settle Hindu civil disputes, while Kazis overlooked the Muslim personal law.

Social reformers of the time, with British tried reforming Hindu society, Acts like the Sati Abolition Act 1829, Caste Disabilities Act 1850, Hindu Widow Remarriage Act 1856, Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929, Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act 1937 were enacted to reform Hindu society.

Similarly, Muslim personal laws were codified under Muslim Personal Law Act 1937 and Muslim Marriage Act 1939. Christian personal laws saw the enactment of Christian Marriage Act 1872, Indian Divorce Act 1869, and Indian Succession Act 1925. Parsi personal laws were codified under Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936.

Post-independence, Hindu Code Bill was passed, comprising of: Hindu Succession Act 1956, Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Hindu Guardianship Act 1956, and Hindu Maintenance Act 1955. These codified laws covered approximately 87% of India’s population, leaving out Muslim, Christian, and Parsi communities. The framers of the Constitution considered the time unfit for reforming personal laws due to the recent partition, thus making UCC a Directive Principles of State Policy to be addressed by future governments.

Every religion in India has its own set of rules that are socially acceptable despite being discriminatory towards women, children, and adoptive family members.

Example:

1. Christian and Parsi laws do not recognize children born out of wedlock, granting succession rights only to legitimate children.¹
2. In Muslim community after the abolishment of Triple Talaq, system of ‘Khula’ is adopted, which is initiated by women unlike triple talaq. However this system is forced upon women by men, and wives are obligated to return Meher to their husbands, financial obligations of husband vary on case-by-case basis, which is regressive towards women.
3. In Assam, recent crackdowns on child marriages charged husbands under the POSCO Act, despite Muslim personal law permitting marriage after puberty. The Special Marriage Act 1954 prescribes girls' minimum marriage age at 18, conflicting with Muslim personal laws, resulting in numerous Assamese marriages being declared void.
4. Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), is a legal entity allowing Hindu families to claim tax benefits. However, any such equivalent benefits are not available to other religions which is violation of Article 14 of Indian Constitution.
5. Furthermore, an illegitimate child is not considered a part of the Hindu Joint Family, which also infringes upon their right to ancestral property.

While judiciary has tried addressing these issues, it often lacks the comprehensive input from all stakeholders to reform all personal laws.

Reforms by the Judiciary:

1. In Moro Vishwanath vs. Ganesh Vithal, Supreme Court interpreted the difference between Hindu Joint Family and a Coparcenary under Mitakshara and Dayabhaga school of law.³
2. In Sujata Sharma vs. Shri Manu Gupta, Delhi High Court ruled that in a HUF a female can become a ‘Karta’.⁴
3. In 2017 a petition was filed in Supreme Court by Naomi Sam Irani challenging the jury system in Parsi matrimonial disputes. The jury's decision is final, and no appeals are permitted; this is unfair to Parsis compared to people of other religions, and it also violates article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. (The matter is still subjudice).
4. In Shayara Bano vs. Union of India, Supreme court declared Triple Talaq in Muslim community as unconstitutional and abolished it.⁵
5. In Molly Joseph vs. George Sebastian, Supreme Court held that Canon laws in Christianity may have religious implications for individual but they are not above civil laws (i.e. Indian Divorce Act, 1869).⁶

Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts to enact judicial reforms. However, excessive use of these powers may lead to judicial overreach. To prevent this we need a statue like UCC. 

Holistic thinking is essential when debating about UCC that would cover entire nation, including sexual and gender minorities. These communities lacks legislation that addresses their marriage, adoption, succession, and divorce as being excluded from personal laws.

Reference Case laws:

1. Delhi High Court. Raj Kumar Sharma vs. Rajinder Nath Diwan. AIR1987 Del323
2. Supreme court of India. Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun. 2023 INSC783
3. Supreme Court of India. Moro Vishwanath vs. Ganesh Vithal. (1873) 10 Bom.444
4. Delhi High Court. Sujata Sharma vs. Shri Manu Gupta. CS(OS)--2011/2006
5. Supreme court of India. Shayara Bano vs. Union of India. (2017)9 SCC1
6. Supreme court of India. Molly Joseph vs. George Sebastian. AIR1997 SC109