Every day, all over the world, almost 2 hours are spent on the internet and social media by users, and 94% of the people in the world use the internet and social media. This data shows that with so many people using the internet and social media, there is a wide impact on people’s minds when anything surfaces online. Among these users, there must be people who are doctors, engineers, lawyers, and even judges! When any outraging incident takes place, it surfaces on the internet widely, and people form their personal opinions without knowing the depth and reality of the facts. On top of all this, our news channels and journalists present a strong opinion based on distorted facts. The general population gets influenced by such opinions; sometimes people don’t even watch the video or read the whole article; they just read the headlines, which are always crafted in the most twisted manner to grab the attention of viewers. By seeing these twisted and distorted headlines, people form very biased opinions toward a particular person. The situation becomes worse when those making personal opinions based on these trending videos are not only citizens of this country but also judges in the court.

In the famous case of the dispute between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, when the facts and circumstances of the case are examined in detail, it seems that both parties were in the wrong, but Amber Heard is particularly placed in a negative light due to her gauche behavior in the media, which may have also affected the jury’s mindset. In November 2020, the judgment went against Johnny Depp, but later, when everything surfaced online, the position of power began to shift toward Johnny Depp.

In the case of actress Rhea Chakraborty and Sushant Singh Rajput, a similar thing happened as the allegations of causing mental trauma were placed on the late actor’s former girlfriend. She had to endure a great deal of criticism on the internet, as well as a CBI investigation and inquiry, and she also faced a career setback. However, the case, which should not have been prolonged, extended to a lengthy investigation due to social media allegations and the personal opinions of users that Rhea Chakraborty was the main culprit behind the scenes.

Should all blame be placed on social media for affecting the justice system?

 Social media is a new era of computer-based technology that helps people connect with each other and share information through virtual networks. Though social media is modern technology that puts every person on trial before the jury makes a decision, based on a few seconds of video that may not be wholly true, it should also be noted that social media is new but society is not! Society existed thousands of years ago when there was no internet and virtual networks. Even in pre-modern times, society had its own prejudices and stereotypes that affected the minds of people making decisions. For example, even in the medieval era, a judge making a decision about stealing goats and whether the convict was an upper-caste Hindu, lower-caste Hindu, or a Muslim would certainly affect the minds of the decision-makers. Even in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, a woman victim of rape would be subjected to much more suspicion than the criminal. Similarly, a woman convicted of adultery would face more backlash than a man.

The human mind is always susceptible to popular opinions prevailing in the society where he or she lives, and that personal opinion will certainly affect the decisions made. John Rawls’ veil of ignorance can be followed by any individual in reality, but whether it can be genuinely achieved is itself a question of debate because the human mind is never free of biases; our genes and the culture in which we grew up shape our minds as if they were our own original ideas.

Is social media influence always bad?

In recent times, the Telangana government issued an order for deforestation in the Kancha Gachibowli region of Hyderabad. The internet was filled with videos of the burning Kancha Gachibowli region and the cries of animals, which led to the suo motu cognizance of the case by the Supreme Court. 

Similarly, in the brutal case involving RG Kar Medical College, when the incidents of the case surfaced online, the Supreme Court immediately took suo motu cognizance of the case, considering the horrendous acts related to it. 

It can be seen that issues which could have led to delayed justice and even negligence by police authorities were addressed immediately, despite political influence, only due to the fact that they had surfaced online, raising awareness among users and leading to mass protests. Hence, it can be said that social media is not always detrimental, especially in terms of serving justice and affecting judicial trials. When a case is taken into cognizance by the judiciary, it goes through judicial proceedings that make decisions based on available evidence and by hearing both sides.  Social media can possibly affect the decision-making of cases, but it cannot affect judicial trials. Judges may form certain opinions at the beginning of such cases, but based only on the facts and evidence available, they can reinforce their personal opinions.

Social media can also aid the justice system. As people in the country become aware of events happening within their nation, they engage in protests that put pressure on both the political and judicial systems, which can also overall affect the reputation of a country worldwide.

What are the possible solutions to deal with fake content?

But still, there is no doubt that any random fake video should not be allowed to stream online, as it can create misinformation and chaos. Hence, some regulations are needed to protect people who can be easily manipulated by such fake videos. There are IT Act, 2021 Rules that deal with such issues; along with them, there are punishments provided in the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita for offenses particularly related to causing disharmony and inciting violence. Along with these legal regulations, there must be some technical regulations as well. For example, AI should be used for detecting fake videos, and if there is any doubt about the authenticity of a video, then a particular label should be placed on it. Additionally, people need to be aware of online fake content. There should be specific classes in schools and colleges to help identify fake videos and to discourage promoting or creating any fake videos themselves.

At the same time, too much control over the contents of social media is a bad idea, as it can significantly give power to the government to curb any disclosure of information related to their own wrongdoing. Hence, the regulation of harmful and fake online content should be better managed by AI detectors rather than government regulations. Freedom of speech and expression are also essential features of our constitution, but they are still subject to the restrictions provided in Article 19 of the Constitution. Countries like Russia have much stricter regulations regarding the publication of any content that goes on the internet. However, this has led only to anarchy and limitations on authentic videos instead of fake ones. Therefore, such regulations are worse than having no regulation on online content.

References –

Wikipedia, Social media (jun 7, 2025, 11:07 AM) Social Media https://g.co/kgs/8gswGzP

Rahul V Pisharody, Kancha Gachibowli land issue: All you need to know about the protests in Hyderabad, The Indian Express ( june 7, 2025, 11:30 AM) https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/kancha-gachibowli-forest-issue-9926884/lite/

Yuval Noah Harrari, 21 lessons for the 21^st century, (1^st edition,2018)

Every day, all over the world, almost 2 hours are spent on the internet and social media by users, and 94% of the people in the world use the internet and social media. This data shows that with so many people using the internet and social media, there is a wide impact on people’s minds when anything surfaces online. Among these users, there must be people who are doctors, engineers, lawyers, and even judges! When any outraging incident takes place, it surfaces on the internet widely, and people form their personal opinions without knowing the depth and reality of the facts. On top of all this, our news channels and journalists present a strong opinion based on distorted facts. The general population gets influenced by such opinions; sometimes people don’t even watch the video or read the whole article; they just read the headlines, which are always crafted in the most twisted manner to grab the attention of viewers. By seeing these twisted and distorted headlines, people form very biased opinions toward a particular person. The situation becomes worse when those making personal opinions based on these trending videos are not only citizens of this country but also judges in the court.

In the famous case of the dispute between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, when the facts and circumstances of the case are examined in detail, it seems that both parties were in the wrong, but Amber Heard is particularly placed in a negative light due to her gauche behavior in the media, which may have also affected the jury’s mindset. In November 2020, the judgment went against Johnny Depp, but later, when everything surfaced online, the position of power began to shift toward Johnny Depp.

In the case of actress Rhea Chakraborty and Sushant Singh Rajput, a similar thing happened as the allegations of causing mental trauma were placed on the late actor’s former girlfriend. She had to endure a great deal of criticism on the internet, as well as a CBI investigation and inquiry, and she also faced a career setback. However, the case, which should not have been prolonged, extended to a lengthy investigation due to social media allegations and the personal opinions of users that Rhea Chakraborty was the main culprit behind the scenes.

Should all blame be placed on social media for affecting the justice system?

 Social media is a new era of computer-based technology that helps people connect with each other and share information through virtual networks. Though social media is modern technology that puts every person on trial before the jury makes a decision, based on a few seconds of video that may not be wholly true, it should also be noted that social media is new but society is not! Society existed thousands of years ago when there was no internet and virtual networks. Even in pre-modern times, society had its own prejudices and stereotypes that affected the minds of people making decisions. For example, even in the medieval era, a judge making a decision about stealing goats and whether the convict was an upper-caste Hindu, lower-caste Hindu, or a Muslim would certainly affect the minds of the decision-makers. Even in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, a woman victim of rape would be subjected to much more suspicion than the criminal. Similarly, a woman convicted of adultery would face more backlash than a man.

The human mind is always susceptible to popular opinions prevailing in the society where he or she lives, and that personal opinion will certainly affect the decisions made. John Rawls’ veil of ignorance can be followed by any individual in reality, but whether it can be genuinely achieved is itself a question of debate because the human mind is never free of biases; our genes and the culture in which we grew up shape our minds as if they were our own original ideas.

Is social media influence always bad?

In recent times, the Telangana government issued an order for deforestation in the Kancha Gachibowli region of Hyderabad. The internet was filled with videos of the burning Kancha Gachibowli region and the cries of animals, which led to the suo motu cognizance of the case by the Supreme Court. 

Similarly, in the brutal case involving RG Kar Medical College, when the incidents of the case surfaced online, the Supreme Court immediately took suo motu cognizance of the case, considering the horrendous acts related to it. 

It can be seen that issues which could have led to delayed justice and even negligence by police authorities were addressed immediately, despite political influence, only due to the fact that they had surfaced online, raising awareness among users and leading to mass protests. Hence, it can be said that social media is not always detrimental, especially in terms of serving justice and affecting judicial trials. When a case is taken into cognizance by the judiciary, it goes through judicial proceedings that make decisions based on available evidence and by hearing both sides.  Social media can possibly affect the decision-making of cases, but it cannot affect judicial trials. Judges may form certain opinions at the beginning of such cases, but based only on the facts and evidence available, they can reinforce their personal opinions.

Social media can also aid the justice system. As people in the country become aware of events happening within their nation, they engage in protests that put pressure on both the political and judicial systems, which can also overall affect the reputation of a country worldwide.

What are the possible solutions to deal with fake content?

But still, there is no doubt that any random fake video should not be allowed to stream online, as it can create misinformation and chaos. Hence, some regulations are needed to protect people who can be easily manipulated by such fake videos. There are IT Act, 2021 Rules that deal with such issues; along with them, there are punishments provided in the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita for offenses particularly related to causing disharmony and inciting violence. Along with these legal regulations, there must be some technical regulations as well. For example, AI should be used for detecting fake videos, and if there is any doubt about the authenticity of a video, then a particular label should be placed on it. Additionally, people need to be aware of online fake content. There should be specific classes in schools and colleges to help identify fake videos and to discourage promoting or creating any fake videos themselves.

At the same time, too much control over the contents of social media is a bad idea, as it can significantly give power to the government to curb any disclosure of information related to their own wrongdoing. Hence, the regulation of harmful and fake online content should be better managed by AI detectors rather than government regulations. Freedom of speech and expression are also essential features of our constitution, but they are still subject to the restrictions provided in Article 19 of the Constitution. Countries like Russia have much stricter regulations regarding the publication of any content that goes on the internet. However, this has led only to anarchy and limitations on authentic videos instead of fake ones. Therefore, such regulations are worse than having no regulation on online content.

References –

Wikipedia, Social media (jun 7, 2025, 11:07 AM) Social Media https://g.co/kgs/8gswGzP

Rahul V Pisharody, Kancha Gachibowli land issue: All you need to know about the protests in Hyderabad, The Indian Express ( june 7, 2025, 11:30 AM) https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/kancha-gachibowli-forest-issue-9926884/lite/

Yuval Noah Harrari, 21 lessons for the 21^st century, (1^st edition,2018)