Retired CJI Chandrachud’s reflections on this issue are both personal and professional. He has gone on record that he has been one of the most trolled judges in the country and how social media campaigns can affect a judge’s morale and decision-making process. In his farewell speech, he admitted that exposing his personal life to the public led to unwarranted attacks that were often far removed from his judicial duties. However, his insights into the pressures faced by judges, especially at the district level, provide a nuanced understanding of the broader implications these attacks have on the judicial system.

Criticism of judicial decisions has always been part of democratic discourse. Citizens and legal professionals alike have the right to challenge and question judgments. In fact, such scrutiny ensures accountability and transparency in the judicial process. However, the line between constructive criticism and personal attacks is often blurred in the digital age. Justice Chandrachud emphasized that while it is perfectly acceptable to criticize judgments, targeting individual judges is an entirely different matter. Such attacks, particularly when fuelled by lobbyists and social media, have serious ramifications for the functioning of the judiciary.

The key concern here is that these personal attacks can put immense pressure on judges to conform to popular opinion, even when it runs counter to their understanding of the law. Judges are trained to make decisions based on the facts and the law, not on the demands of external influencers or online campaigns. When a judge feels the weight of public opinion or a concerted campaign against them, it may affect their ability to remain impartial. The integrity of the judiciary hinges on the belief that judges are free to make decisions without fear of retribution, and this independence is increasingly under threat.

One of the most alarming aspects of this problem is the impact it has on judges outside the higher judiciary, especially at the district level. While the higher judiciary may still enjoy some degree of insulation from public pressure, district judges are more vulnerable to external influences. The pressures faced by district judges often manifest in the quality of their judgments, which may be compromised as a result of fear or intimidation. It is in these courts that many citizens seek justice, and the integrity of these judgments is crucial for the functioning of the justice system as a whole.

The issue is not limited to India alone. Globally, judges are grappling with the challenge of preserving their independence in the face of growing political and social pressure, amplified by the reach of social media. The rise of online campaigns targeting judges, fuelled by political ideologies or vested interests, poses a serious threat to the impartiality of the judicial process. Social media platforms, where misinformation can spread rapidly, create an environment where judges can be vilified and their credibility questioned by those who disagree with their decisions.

While social media platforms have democratized access to information and allowed for greater public engagement with the judicial process, they have also given rise to new forms of influence and manipulation. The anonymity afforded by the internet allows individuals and groups to target judges without facing any consequences for their actions. This creates a toxic environment where personal attacks are made with little accountability, further eroding public trust in the judiciary.

Social media has become a tool for organized campaigns, often led by lobbyists or politically motivated groups, to discredit judges who issue decisions they find unfavourable. These campaigns can be highly coordinated and relentless, flooding social media platforms with negative narratives that can tarnish the reputations of judges and undermine their authority. As a result, judges, particularly those in the lower courts, may feel compelled to align their decisions with popular sentiment rather than their professional judgment. This can have dire consequences for the justice system, as it undermines the rule of law and encourages a culture of fear within the judiciary.

Chandrachud has spoken about the inherent limitations within the rule of law, and that judges cannot always offer solutions to every injustice that comes before them. The law is not always equipped to provide an answer to every societal issue, and there are cases where justice may not be served in the way people expect. This reality can be difficult for the public to accept, especially when social media amplifies feelings of outrage or frustration. Judges are human, and they too must contend with the complexities of law and the limitations of their role.

While social media cannot be wished away, it is crucial that judges and the judiciary at large resist the pressure to conform to online demands. This resistance is not just about protecting individual judges, but about safeguarding the integrity of the judicial institution as a whole. If judges are unable to make independent decisions free from external pressure, the foundation of the rule of law itself is at risk. The judiciary must be allowed to function without interference from those who seek to influence its decisions for personal or political gain. (IPA Service)