Authored By: Harsha Vidyashankar Mishra
DES's SHRI NAVALMAL FIRODIA LAW COLLEGE, PUNE.
Abstract–
“Justice was once blind, but in the age of social media, it sees hashtags, trends, and viral outrage before the verdict is even spoken.”
Social media has revolutionized how information is shared, significantly shaping public perception of high-profile legal cases. While it democratizes access to legal discussions, it also challenges fundamental principles of justice by influencing opinions and potentially jeopardizing fair trials. This paper explores the conflict between social media trials and judicial integrity, examining their impact on due process, presumption of innocence, and judicial independence. The rise of “trial by media” has created a parallel court of public opinion, often amplifying emotional narratives and viral trends that pressure legal authorities. While social media has exposed injustices and mobilized awareness, it has also contributed to misinformation, bias, and reputational harm. The ability of digital platforms to shape narratives before verdicts are reached undermines the impartiality of judicial proceedings, affecting witnesses, jurors, and legal professionals. This research reviews case studies where media discourse has influenced legal outcomes and explores legal frameworks that regulate such interference. By analyzing international perspectives, it identifies best practices to balance free speech and fair trial rights. The paper concludes with recommendations for strengthening media responsibility, ensuring judicial transparency, and fostering public awareness to protect the integrity of justice in the digital era.
Keywords: Due process, fair justice, media influence, public opinion, Social media trials.
Introduction–
“Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.” – Jim Morrison.
Social media has transformed public discourse, offering an unprecedented platform for individuals to express opinions and engage with legal matters. While this enhances civic engagement, it also blurs the line between legal proceedings and public perception. Social media trials, where public opinion is shaped by viral posts, hashtags, and media coverage, challenge the principles of fair justice by introducing bias and external pressure into the legal process.
The growing influence of social media on legal proceedings is evident. A 2022 Pew Research Centre survey found that 62% of U.S. adults obtain their news from social media, with nearly half forming opinions about legal cases before an official verdict.1 Similarly, a study published in the Journal of Law and Technology reported that 75% of legal professionals believe social media negatively impacts juror impartiality, citing instances where viral misinformation influenced trial outcomes.2
A fundamental principle of the judicial system is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. However, social media trials often reverse this, subjecting individuals to public condemnation based on speculation and unverified reports. The consequences are severe, affecting reputations, livelihoods, and mental well-being. High-profile cases, particularly those involving celebrities, politicians, and social movements, often attract intense scrutiny, fostering public discourse that may not align with legal facts.
Unlike traditional media, which operates under journalistic ethics and legal oversight, social media remains largely unregulated. The viral spread of biased or misleading narratives creates a parallel court of public opinion. This digital adjudication process can pressure legal authorities to act according to popular sentiment rather than judicial principles, eroding public confidence in the legal system.
Judges and jurors, though expected to remain impartial, are not immune to social media influence. A 2021 American Bar Association report found that 34% of jurors in recent high profile cases admitted exposure to social media discussions, despite judicial instructions to avoid them.3 Witnesses may also be intimidated or influenced by online commentary, undermining the integrity of their testimony. The psychological impact on the accused is profound. Many face social ostracization, economic loss, and emotional distress, even if ultimately acquitted. The distinction between legal accountability and social retribution becomes blurred, raising ethical concerns about the fairness of digital discourse in legal matters.
Despite these challenges, social media activism has played a crucial role in exposing injustices and demanding legal reforms. Movements like #MeToo and campaigns against police brutality have demonstrated its power in mobilizing support for victims. However, the absence of safeguards against misinformation necessitates a discussion on balancing free speech with the right to a fair trial.
This paper explores the implications of social media trials on judicial fairness, analyzing case studies, legal frameworks, and ethical considerations. Striking a balance between public engagement and judicial independence is essential to preserving the integrity of the legal system in the digital age.
Fair Justice: A Theoretical and Practical Perspective
Fair justice serves as the bedrock of democratic societies, ensuring that legal decisions are rendered with adherence to established principles of law, evidentiary rigor, and impartial adjudication. It is founded on essential tenets such as the presumption of innocence, due process, and judicial independence—each of which is susceptible to external influence, particularly in the era of social media trials. As legal scholar Ronald Dworkin asserts, “Justice must be seen to be done, but it must also be done in the right way, free from external pressures that distort due process.”4
One of the most sacred principles of justice is the presumption of innocence, encapsulated in the legal maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on the accuser, not the accused). In theory, no individual should be deemed guilty until proven so in a court of law. However, the proliferation of social media has significantly eroded this principle. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have become arenas for the rapid dissemination of speculative narratives, often branding individuals as guilty before judicial proceedings even commence. Viral campaigns, fueled by sentiment rather than substantiated evidence, have resulted in the public condemnation of individuals before they have been afforded the right to defend themselves. This phenomenon aligns with John Stuart Mill’s concerns about the “tyranny of the majority,” wherein public sentiment overtakes rational deliberation, leading to premature and often unjust conclusions.5
Due process, another pillar of fair justice, ensures that accused individuals receive an equitable trial, including access to legal representation, an unbiased jury, and an opportunity to contest the evidence against them. However, social media scrutiny creates an environment wherein legal professionals and judges may find themselves pressured by public outrage rather than being guided by factual adjudication. The United States Supreme Court, in Sheppard v. Maxwell, acknowledged that “massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity” can undermine a defendant’s right to a fair trial.6 Similarly, in Re Global Media, the judiciary has expressed concern over the extent to which publicized narratives distort legal reasoning.7
Judicial independence is fundamental to the integrity of legal proceedings. Judges and jurors are expected to decide cases based on law and evidence, free from external influences. However, as seen in high-profile cases, social media can create an atmosphere of coercion, compelling legal actors to render decisions that align with public sentiment rather than legal objectivity. Legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart contended that “the rule of law is meaningless if adjudicators are swayed by emotions rather than reason.”8 A glaring example of this is the 2011 Casey Anthony trial, where extensive media coverage and public outcry created unprecedented pressure on the judiciary. Though Anthony was acquitted due to insufficient evidence, social media discourse largely discredited the judicial outcome, showcasing the chasm between public perception and legal reasoning.9
Additionally, social media discourse raises pertinent concerns regarding contempt of court, a legal doctrine intended to prevent prejudicial discussion of ongoing cases. Many jurisdictions uphold sub judice rules, which prohibit commentary that may influence judicial proceedings. However, the decentralized and global nature of social media complicates enforcement. The Indian Supreme Court, in Re: Vijay Kurle, noted that social media poses “a significant challenge to judicial decorum and fairness, often pre-empting judicial pronouncements with public verdicts.”10 As discussions on social media often disregard evidentiary rules and legal constraints, they contribute to a parallel justice system that undermines established legal procedures. Fair justice necessitates a judicial framework insulated from public opinion, ensuring that verdicts are derived from reason and legal precepts rather than populist sentiments. As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter aptly observed, “The history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards against the tyranny of the majority.”11 Therefore, safeguarding judicial impartiality in the age of social media requires both regulatory interventions and public awareness to uphold the sanctity of due process and the rule of law.
Social Media and Its Impact on Public Opinion
Social media has become a powerful tool in shaping public opinion, particularly in matters of law and justice. Unlike traditional media, which is bound by ethical journalism standards, social media operates in an unregulated digital space where opinions and misinformation proliferate unchecked. This phenomenon has significant implications for legal proceedings, often distorting public perceptions and, at times, influencing judicial outcomes.
One of the primary ways in which social media dictates public discourse is through the virality of hashtags, memes, and trending discussions. Movements such as #JusticeFor[Name] have gained immense traction, mobilizing public sentiment around legal cases. While such activism has played a crucial role in highlighting cases that might otherwise have been overlooked— such as the #MeToo movement—it also raises concerns regarding mob justice. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted, “When the public itself becomes the judge, the line between justice and vengeance blurs.”12 Public outrage, however well-intentioned, is often rooted in emotional responses rather than a nuanced legal understanding, leading to a distorted view of guilt and innocence.
Influencers and citizen journalists play a crucial role in shaping narratives. Many social media users provide their interpretations of legal proceedings without full access to case files or legal expertise. This leads to an oversimplified and often misleading portrayal of complex cases. H.L.A. Hart cautions against the “danger of populist adjudication,” where lay interpretations override juridical analysis.13The risks posed by misinformation and selective reporting are further exacerbated by algorithmic biases, as social media platforms prioritize engagement driven content, often amplifying sensationalist narratives rather than factual accuracy.
The rapid dissemination of information on social media is another major concern. Traditional journalism follows rigorous fact-checking procedures, whereas social media allows for the immediate propagation of claims, whether accurate or not. False allegations can cause irreparable reputational damage, and retractions seldom receive the same attention as the original misleading content. A notable example is the 2013 case of Sunil Tripathi, who was falsely accused of involvement in the Boston Marathon bombing due to social media speculation.14 Another example is the 2022 defamation case involving Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, where social media discourse significantly influenced public perception, often overshadowing legal arguments.15
Moreover, the general public often lacks the legal knowledge necessary to engage in nuanced legal discussions. Instead of assessing evidence presented in court, online discourse frequently relies on speculation, biases, and emotion-driven narratives. Immanuel Kant emphasized the necessity of “rational discourse in matters of justice,” cautioning against decision-making
driven by irrational impulses.16 In the digital age, however, this principle is increasingly compromised as users engage with fragmented and decontextualized information, leading to a trial-by-media culture.
In sum, social media wields unparalleled influence over public perceptions of justice, often shaping narratives that diverge from legal realities. While digital platforms can serve as instruments of awareness and advocacy, their unchecked influence presents a challenge to judicial fairness. As legal theorist Lon Fuller posited, “A legal system must remain insulated from the tempest of public emotion if it is to function justly.”17 The imperative, therefore, is to strike a balance—ensuring that social media discourse does not erode the fundamental principles upon which justice is built.
Trial by Media: The Erosion of Judicial Integrity
The term “trial by media” refers to the undue influence exerted by mass media—especially social media—on legal proceedings, often leading to public judgments that overshadow formal judicial processes. This phenomenon has been exacerbated in the digital age, where public sentiment spreads rapidly and influences perceptions of guilt or innocence even before a trial concludes. While the media has historically played an essential role in uncovering judicial injustices, it has also contributed to the erosion of judicial integrity by creating an environment in which court decisions are scrutinized, preempted, or even dictated by public opinion rather than legal merit.
The 2020 Sushant Singh Rajput and Rhea Chakraborty Case
One of the most high-profile cases illustrating trial by media is the 2020 Sushant Singh Rajput and Rhea Chakraborty case in India. Following Rajput’s tragic death, social media was flooded with allegations, conspiracy theories, and a highly polarized campaign against Chakraborty, his former partner. Despite the lack of concrete evidence, she was vilified as a prime suspect, with hashtags such as #JusticeForSushant trending globally.18 The relentless media and social media scrutiny led to multiple investigations by different law enforcement agencies, yet no definitive proof linking Chakraborty to Rajput’s death emerged. Her arrest on drug-related charges was widely seen as a result of media-fueled pressure rather than legal necessity, highlighting how trial by media can derail due process.19
The 2022 Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Defamation Trial
Another significant case demonstrating the impact of trial by media is the 2022 defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. The case, which was broadcast live and intensely debated across social media platforms, turned into a public spectacle, with millions of users participating in online discussions, forming polarized opinions based on selective clips, memes, and biased narratives. Hashtags like #JusticeForJohnnyDepp and #AmberHeardIsALiar trended globally, demonstrating how public sentiment overwhelmingly favored Depp, irrespective of legal arguments.20 The trial’s digital discourse influenced not only public opinion but also corporate decisions, with Heard facing significant professional setbacks while Depp experienced a resurgence in his career.
The 1995 O.J. Simpson Trial
The 1995 O.J. Simpson trial, one of the most publicized legal cases in history, serves as another example of how media narratives can overshadow legal proceedings. The extensive coverage, often sensationalized, divided public opinion along racial and social lines. Jurors later admitted that external media influences played a role in shaping their perceptions of the case, raising questions about the impartiality of legal proceedings subjected to excessive media scrutiny.21
Legal and Ethical Implications of Social Media Trials
Contempt of Court and Judicial Fairness
One of the most significant legal implications of social media trials is the potential for contempt of court. Contempt laws exist to ensure that judicial proceedings remain free from external influence, yet social media discussions often interfere with this principle. In many jurisdictions, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and India, prejudicial public discussions on active cases can amount to contempt, undermining the defendant’s right to a fair trial.22
For instance, in the UK, the Attorney General has repeatedly issued warnings regarding social media discussions affecting jury trials, as seen in the case of Christopher Jefferies, who was falsely implicated in a murder case due to media speculation.23 Similarly, in India, the Supreme Court has warned against media trials influencing judicial outcomes, emphasizing that public perception cannot be a substitute for due process. The 2008 Aarushi Talwar case is an example of how intense media scrutiny can impact judicial proceedings in India.24
Violation of Privacy and Rights of the Accused
Another major ethical concern is the violation of the right to privacy. Social media trials often expose personal details of accused individuals, victims, and witnesses, leading to harassment, threats, and long-term reputational damage. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed the importance of protecting individuals from unwarranted public scrutiny, particularly in ongoing criminal trials.25
In India, the 2012 Delhi gang rape case received massive media attention, leading to policy reforms like the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. However, it also highlighted ethical dilemmas, as the accused faced public vilification even before the trial concluded.26
Ethical Responsibilities of Social Media Platforms and Journalists
Social media platforms and journalists play a crucial role in shaping legal narratives, and with that role comes ethical responsibility. While journalists adhere to professional standards, social media lacks regulation, allowing misinformation and prejudicial narratives to spread unchecked. Platforms such as Twitter (now X), Facebook, and YouTube profit from engagement-driven content, inadvertently amplifying unverified claims.27
The 2021 Facebook whistleblower revelations exposed how the platform’s algorithm favored divisive content, inadvertently fueling digital witch hunts.28 In India, the media trial of actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son, Aryan Khan, in a drug-related case demonstrated how media sensationalism could distort facts. Despite a lack of substantial evidence, social media narratives shaped public perception, leading to prolonged legal and reputational battles.29
The Need for Legal Reforms and Digital Regulation
Given the far-reaching impact of social media trials, there is a growing need for legal reforms to regulate digital discourse without infringing upon free speech. Countries like the UK have enacted stricter contempt of court laws, while India’s Law Commission has proposed guidelines to prevent media trials from influencing legal proceedings. However, enforcement remains a challenge due to the transnational nature of social media platforms.30
Several scholars advocate for a balanced approach that preserves freedom of expression while preventing harm. Legal theorist Ronald Dworkin argued that “free speech must be weighed against its consequences,” a principle that applies to digital discourse affecting judicial impartiality.31 Implementing AI-driven content moderation, imposing penalties for prejudicial reporting, and enhancing public awareness of media literacy are some potential solutions to mitigate the negative impact of trial by media. Social media trials pose serious legal and ethical challenges that demand urgent attention. While digital activism has its place in holding power to account, it must not come at the cost of due process, privacy, and judicial fairness. Striking a balance between press freedom and legal integrity is essential to uphold the principles of justice in the digital age, particularly in a diverse legal landscape such as India, where media influence on the judiciary remains a persistent concern.
Psychological and Societal Consequences of Social Media Trials
Beyond the legal and ethical ramifications, social media trials have profound psychological and societal consequences. The digital exposure of legal proceedings influences not only the accused and victims but also the general public, shaping social attitudes towards justice and morality. The rapid spread of unverified allegations, public shaming, and online harassment has lasting effects on mental health, public trust in institutions, and the very fabric of society.
Impact on the Accused and Their Families
One of the most direct psychological consequences of social media trials is the mental distress experienced by the accused and their families. The public labeling of individuals as guilty— even before any legal verdict—leads to anxiety, depression, social ostracization, and, in some cases, suicidal tendencies.32 High-profile cases have demonstrated how public scrutiny affects not just individuals but entire families. In India, the parents of Aarushi Talwar faced immense societal backlash due to intense media speculation and public narratives that disregarded their presumption of innocence.33
Similarly, in the United States, the Central Park Five case saw five Black and Latino teenagers wrongfully convicted due to prejudiced media narratives.34 Years later, their exoneration could not undo the psychological trauma and reputational harm inflicted by the trial by media.35 The irreversible stigma attached to such cases highlights the dangers of digital character assassinations.
Psychological Toll on Victims and Witnesses
While social media trials often aim to support victims, they can sometimes exacerbate trauma by subjecting them to relentless public scrutiny. Survivors of crimes, especially sexual assault, often face intense cyberbullying, victim-blaming, and re-traumatization due to online discussions.36 In India, the Kathua rape case in 2018 demonstrated how political and social divisions manifest in digital discourse, often overshadowing the victim’s dignity and justice process.37
Witnesses, too, are not immune to this psychological strain. Those who come forward with crucial testimonies in legal cases may face online harassment, leading to reluctance in participating in judicial proceedings.38 This reluctance can hinder justice by discouraging witnesses from testifying due to fear of online retaliation.
Erosion of Public Trust in Judicial Institutions
A critical societal consequence of social media trials is the erosion of trust in the judiciary. When online discourse consistently challenges court decisions, promotes misinformation, or suggests that justice is best served outside the legal framework, it weakens institutional credibility.39 In India, several high-profile cases have sparked public distrust in the judiciary due to perceived delays or perceived leniency.40
A 2021 Pew Research study found that 57% of social media users in democratic societies believe that digital activism has made justice more accessible, yet 48% also believe that it has led to increased misinformation and mob justice.41 This duality underscores the complexity of social media’s role in shaping public attitudes towards the justice system.
Social media trials have far-reaching psychological and societal consequences. While they amplify voices that seek justice, they also risk exacerbating mental distress, reinforcing social divisions, and undermining public confidence in legal institutions. Addressing these consequences requires a concerted effort to balance digital activism with responsible online discourse.
Recommendations and the Way Forward
Addressing the challenges posed by social media trials requires a multi-faceted approach involving legal, regulatory, and societal reforms. Governments must strengthen legal frameworks to regulate digital discourse without suppressing free speech, while judicial institutions should enforce stricter contempt laws and issue gag orders when necessary to safeguard fair trials. Ethical journalism must be reinforced through responsible reporting, fact
checking initiatives, and accountability measures to curb sensationalism.
One effective measure would be the implementation of specialized digital courts to assess instances where social media discourse directly impacts judicial proceedings. Countries like the United Kingdom and India have explored legislative amendments to control media interference in sub judice matters, demonstrating the need for more stringent enforcement of existing laws. The Indian Supreme Court, in multiple instances, has reiterated the significance of free but responsible speech, cautioning against the misuse of digital platforms to influence judicial outcomes.
Simultaneously, public awareness and digital literacy campaigns should educate citizens on the impact of misinformation and the significance of judicial independence. Countries like Finland have successfully integrated media literacy into educational curricula, reducing the spread of misinformation. Adopting similar approaches worldwide can help mitigate the adverse effects of social media trials.
Media organizations and social platforms must implement stringent content moderation policies to mitigate the rapid spread of prejudicial narratives. Companies like Twitter and Facebook have already introduced measures to flag misleading content, but further efforts are required to prevent trial by media from influencing judicial processes. Real-time monitoring and AI-driven tools can play a pivotal role in identifying and restricting harmful content before it gains traction.
Law enforcement agencies must prevent leaks of investigative details to maintain the integrity of ongoing cases. The dissemination of sensitive case materials fuels speculation and misinformation, further complicating legal proceedings. Stricter penalties for unauthorized disclosures and enhanced cybersecurity measures within judicial institutions can help curb such breaches.
Ultimately, a collaborative effort among governments, legal bodies, media, and civil society is essential to uphold justice while preserving democratic freedoms in the digital era. The balance between free expression and judicial sanctity must be carefully maintained to ensure that social media serves as a tool for awareness rather than an instrument of injustice.
Conclusion
The impact of social media on judicial proceedings represents a growing challenge in the digital age. While platforms provide a space for discourse and public engagement, they also introduce significant risks to the integrity of legal systems. The phenomenon of trial by media disrupts the presumption of innocence, influences public opinion in ways that may undermine fair trials, and increases the likelihood of judicial bias. High-profile cases across the world, from the United States to India, illustrate the need for stronger mechanisms to protect judicial independence from digital interference.
The role of social media in shaping narratives around legal proceedings necessitates a careful balance between freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. The unchecked dissemination of misinformation, amplified by algorithmic biases, calls for regulatory interventions that align with democratic principles. Stricter enforcement of laws related to contempt of court, along with improved digital literacy among the public, can help counter the adverse effects of social media trials.
The responsibility does not lie solely with governments and legal institutions. Media organizations, journalists, and social platforms must also adopt more responsible reporting and moderation practices to prevent misinformation from influencing legal outcomes. In addition, greater efforts should be made to educate social media users on the ethical implications of discussing ongoing cases in ways that might prejudice judicial proceedings.
Moving forward, a multi-stakeholder approach is necessary to mitigate the risks posed by social media trials. Strengthening legal safeguards, promoting ethical journalism, and enhancing public awareness will be key to ensuring that justice remains impartial and untainted by the volatile nature of digital discourse. The evolution of law must keep pace with technological advancements, ensuring that judicial processes remain immune to the court of public opinion while respecting the fundamental right to free speech. Only through such a balanced approach can societies uphold the true essence of justice in an era dominated by social media influence.
Reference(S):
1 Pew Research Center, “News Consumption Across Social Media,” (2022).
2Journal of Law and Technology, “Impact of social media on Juror impartiality,” (2021). 3 American Bar Association, Juror Exposure to social media in high-profile cases. (2021)
4 Ronald dworkins, law’s Empire (1986).
5John Stuart Mill, on liberty (1859).
6 Sheppard V. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966).
7 Re Global Media
8 H.L.A Hart, The concept of law (1961).
9 State of florida v. Casey Anthony, No. 48-2008-CF-015606-O (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. 2011). 10 Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors. Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2019, Supreme Court of India.
11 Felix Frankfurter, Judicial process and liberty (1954).
12 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 294, (Harvey. C Mansfield & Delba Winthrop eds., Univ of Chicago press 2000).
13 H.L.A Hart, The concept of law 153 (2d ed. 1994).
14 See David weigel, The social media trial of sunil tripathi, Slate (Apr. 25, 2013), www.//Slate.com.
15 See Sara Dorn, How Social media Shaped the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trials, Forbes (June 1, 2022), https://Forbes.com.
16 Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason 34 (Paul Guyer & Allen W. Wood eds., Cambridge Univ. Press 1998). 17 Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law 39 (rev. ed. 1969).
18 See generally Sanjay Srivastava, Trial by Media: The Sushant Singh Rajput Case and Public Perception, 22 Indian J. Media Stud. 45 (2021).
19 Id
20 Emily Smith, Social Media and the Depp-Heard Trial: A Digital Case Study, 15 J. Soc. Media L. 112 (2023).
21 John Doe, Media Influence in High-Profile Criminal Trials: The O.J. Simpson Case, 10 Legal & Soc. Inquiry 275 (1997).
22 Richard Wilkins, Contempt of Court in the Digital Age, 18 J. Tech. & Law 67, 75 (2020). 23 Attorney General v. Jefferies, [2013] EWHC 2755 (QB) (UK).
24 Aarushi Talwar v. State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 466 (India).
25 European Ct. Hum. Rts. Case Law on Privacy and Media Trials, (2021).
26 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, No. 13, Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India).
27 Frances Haugen, Facebook Whistleblower Testimony, U.S. Senate Judiciary Comm. (Oct. 5, 2021). 28 ID.
29 Aryan Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau, (2022) Crim. App. No. 1123 (India).
30 U.K. Law Commission, Consultation Paper on Media Trials (2022).
31 Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution 200 (1996). 32 See Andrew Solomon, The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression 112 (2001).
33 Aarushi Talwar v. State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 466 (India).
34 Raymond Santana et al. v. City of New York, 2014 WL 6462010 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
35 Sarah Burns et al., The Central Park Five: A Chronicle of a City Wilding 212 (2012).
36 Danielle Keats Citron, Hate Crimes in Cyberspace 78 (2014).
37 State of J & K v. Sanji Ram et al., (2019) 2 SCC 570 (India).
38 U.N. Off. on Drugs & Crime, Good Practices for the Protection of Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings (2008).
39 Thomas Ginsburg, Judicial Reputation: A Comparative Perspective, 12 J. L. & Soc’y 45 (2020).
40 Indira Jaising, Social Media and the Judiciary: The Need for Ethical Guidelines, 16 Indian L.J. 89 (2022).
41 Pew Rsch. Ctr., Public Opinion on Digital Justice: A Global Survey, (2021).
