By PTI
NEW DELHI: Digital and social media should be mandatorily regulated within the nation to protect the rule of legislation underneath the Constitution, Supreme Court Judge Justice J B Pardiwala stated on Sunday, terming as harmful the crossing of Lakshman rekha’ on these platforms for personalised, agenda-driven assaults” on the judges.
The remarks by Justice Pardiwala at an occasion right here come amid an uproar by a piece over the robust oral observations of a trip bench, during which he was a member, in opposition to suspended BJP chief Nupur Sharma for her controversial feedback in opposition to Prophet Mohammed.
The apex courtroom had stated that her “loose tongue” has “set the entire country on fire” and she or he ought to apologise.
The observations of the bench, which had additionally refused to membership the FIRs lodged in opposition to Sharma throughout the nation, sparked a debate, together with on digital and social media platforms, resulting in some uncharitable feedback in opposition to the judges additionally.
In India, which can’t be categorized as mature and an knowledgeable democracy, social and digital media is employed ceaselessly to politicise purely authorized and constitutional points, Justice Pardiwala stated and gave the illustration of the Ayodhya land dispute case.
He stated the trials by digital media are an undue interference within the justice dispensation system.
“Crossing that ’Lakshman rekha’ many times, this is especially more worrisome,” the decide, who has just lately been elevated to the highest courtroom, stated.
ALSO READ | Nupur Sharma row elgulfs meeting proceedings of Budget session in Odisha
Justice Pardiwala was talking on the second Justice HR Khanna Memorial National Symposium organised by Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow & National Law University, Odisha together with the Confederation of Alumni for National Law Universities (CAN Foundation).
Digital and social media must be mandatorily regulated within the nation to protect the rule of legislation underneath our Constitution.
“Attacks attempted at our judges for the judgements will lead to a dangerous scenario where the judges will have to pay greater attention as to what the media thinks rather than what the law actually mandates. This puts the rule of law on the burner ignoring the sanctity of the respect for the courts,” he stated.
Speaking with reference to Vox Populi vs.Rule of Law: Supreme Court of India’, Justice Pardiwala stated, Judicial verdicts can’t be the reflection of the affect of public opinion.
Observing that the rule of legislation has to prevail over the favored public sentiment, the apex courtroom decide stated that balancing the intent of the bulk populace on one hand and assembly its demand and affirming the rule of legislation on the opposite is an arduous train.
It requires excessive judicial craftsmanship to stroll the tightrope between the 2 that’s the place individuals suppose ’log kya kahenge, log kya sochenge’ (What will individuals say, what is going to individuals suppose) is an enigma which haunts every decide at any time when he’s to pen down a judgement, he stated.
Talking about digital and social media, he stated these sections possess solely the half-truth and begin scrutinising the judicial course of.
“They are also not aware of the concept of judicial discipline, binding precedents and inherent limitations of judicial discretion,” he stated.
“This section of people, the half-truth knowledgeable, is the real challenge to the dispensation of justice through the rule of law,” he stated.
ALSO READ | Letter plea to CJI seeks withdrawal of opposed remarks by SC in opposition to Nupur Sharma
Social and digital media is these days primarily resorted to expressing personalised opinions extra in opposition to the judges per se quite than a constructive vital appraisal of their judgements.
This is what’s harming the judicial establishments and decreasing this dignity, he stated.
Justice Pardiwala stated the constitutional courts have at all times graciously accepted knowledgeable dissent and constructive criticism and the authorized ethos at all times debarred the personalised, agenda-driven assaults” on the judges.
He stated the judges should not take part in social media discussions as “judges never speak through their tongue, only their judgements.”
He concluded his tackle by saying “judiciary cannot exist independent of society but the rule of law is insurmountable.”