Viral court clips cause misinformation

Judge of the Supreme Court Judge Br Hawai, is planned to become the next Chief Judge of India, expressed serious warnings, emphasizing the potential for undermining the integrity of lawsuits. “These clips, withdrawal from context, can lead to misinformation, misinterpretation of judicial discussions and inaccurate reporting,” he said in the West.

Former Judge of the Supreme Court of Bombay Gautam Pavel said Mint that the live process “trivializes the work of a judge”. He marked the lack of control of viewers on platforms such as YouTube, contrasting his virtual or hybrid hearing, where visitors can be traced through their IP addresses.

“We do a serious job that influences people, corporations …”, – said justice Pavel.

After downloading, there is no way to control the method of repetition, so it brings more harm than good, he said. “If there is no law that regulates live broadcast or changes in technology for live broadcasting, it should be stopped at all.”

Also read | From Live to Live: Digital influentials take children’s steps into the real world

The Supreme Court launched direct trial television programs as part of the right to access justice in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution aimed at increasing transparency and public confidence. The Electronic Committee of the High Court under the direction of the CJI Dy Chandrachud then issued the guidelines of the model that only authorized entities can record or share proceedings, and unauthorized use is punishable in accordance with the laws on copyright, IT and neglect. However, compulsory execution remains a challenge.

The judge who refused identification stated that the viral nature of these clip can exert excessive pressure on the judiciary, potentially worsening its independence and impartiality. “Judges like to ask questions and participate in discussions with lawyers. Such a thorough check can make judges aware, “he said.

Hamza varnished, a lawyer practicing in the Supreme Court of Bombey, also expressed anxiety. “Virtual hearing is a natural expansion because we have open courts. However, a live broadcast can have a cold effect on lawyers, ”he said, assuming that lawyers can” move or play a gallery. “

He advocated alternative solutions, such as allowing virtual hearing access through platforms, such as Zoom and Webex and the exchange of archived transcripts and audio records for educational purposes. “People can attend lawsuits; They can come to court and attend hearings, ”he said, emphasizing that these measures do not restrict access completely.

Also read | The secret struggle over the blast of India

Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution or modification of such content – providing legal defense, such as fair use – the Constitution on the violation of the copyright law, which allows the courts to demand judicial assistance, compensation for losses and criminal prosecutions. Courts may also refer to the removal mechanisms provided by the IT law to prevent the spread of unauthorized content.

Some lawyers see a direct broadcast as an important step towards transparency and public interaction with the legal system.

It should be “clear, executing principles” to regulate the use and reproduction of the litigation, said the Kumar, a lawyer in the Supreme Court.

He added that the courts may also provide standardized refusals that accompany all direct flows, specifying that single clips do not reflect the whole judicial discourse. Kumar also advocated “Modeling Directives for Social Media Platforms.”

Content creators return direct broadcasts of court cases and virtual hearings, referring to the public good.

Read it | Blue collars that affect the collar: a new force but their brands are not set on fire yet

“Hybrid court hearings have made access to the judicial system easy and should not be canceled,” according to lawyer Anvash Danigra, co -founder of deadly law, the social media channel for legal news and information, he referred to how the virtual hearing of the High Court has reduced “extra cost”.

Recognizing that the content is sometimes sensationalized, he said: “People do not want to consume this information boring or pretty. They prefer entertainment memes, so legal content is important in this sense. “

In order to give the prospect, only in 2024, close to 210 thousand publications related to legal content, was noticed on Instagram from India, which involved the involvement of more than 1.1 billion users, according to the data provided by Qoruz, a marketing technological platform that influences influence.

And although some legal experts urge to abandon the direct flow of the proceedings, Danigragi noted that the space for content creators is already declining. “Our freedom of speech has already been limited to some extent because of fear that if we offend any specific set of people, they will fit us,” he said.

According to Anirudh Sridharan, CEO of Hashfame, Creator’s network platform, many creators even return to their old content on platforms, including Facebook, to “delete older posts years ago, when everything was unfiltered. They want their past.

And read | As the influential may remain out of legal issues

However, Shridharan stated that social media platforms are slightly removed. “Compared to other countries, intermediary responsibility in India is very limited,” he said, adding that when something goes wrong, the platforms are not responsible, and they often blame it for algorithms.