The Supreme Court has expressed its concern over the trend of people instantly uploading mobile phone videos on social media and said such activities pose a serious threat to fair trial.
The remarks were made by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi on Friday (March 21, 2026).
The bench was hearing a PIL which alleged that the police was uploading videos and photographs of the accused on social media and creating bias in people’s minds.
The PIL argued that the court, in another case, had already asked states to frame guidelines for media briefings by the police that would cover social media posts as well.
The bench suggested petitioner Hemendra Patel to await the outcome of these directions and agreed with senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Mr. Patel, that every person who has a mobile phone today has become a medium.
A senior lawyer pointed out the recent trend of posting pictures of accused persons handcuffed, tied with ropes, paraded, forced to kneel etc. on social media, which apart from insulting personal dignity, contributes to public bias.
Standard operating procedure for police media briefings
Justice Bagchi told Sankaranarayanan that instead of talking about the police being given three months to formulate a standard operating procedure for police media briefings, he should seek a comprehensive mechanism for police, conventional and social media.
The judge said that on a larger canvas, the court believes that the police should not create bias against the accused through briefings.
“The police can be restrained through SOPs. But what about the media, especially the social media, and the public? Can they be restrained? TV channels are much more restrained in comparison, even if one disagrees with their views,” Justice Bagchi observed.
The issue may require broader consideration beyond the immediate question raised in the petition, he said.
Justice Bagchi told Sankaranarayanan, “We understand that police briefings to the media must be responsible and reasonable and must not be subject to bias because in the criminal justice system there is no investigating agency for either the victim or the accused.” Sankaranarayanan pointed out that the issue of “media process” was first dealt with by the Supreme Court in the 2012 Sahara v SEBI decision.
Justice Bagchi said it was about the police authorities getting carried away during media briefings and the risks of media trials in ongoing criminal cases.
“It is the duty of the investigating agency to carry out an independent investigation to uncover the truth. To ensure balance, the manual is a very positive step. The manual will prevent the police from making overly enthusiastic statements which may be inferred in relation to matters which are subject to judicial decision in a forensic and dispassionate manner.”
“However, what happens when such an exercise, while constraining the police, is unable to remove the cloud or tainted atmosphere created by third-party connivance where sections of the media tell both sides, leading to a media process that completely subverts the rule of law,” he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that there are tabloids on social media who act as “blackmailers”. “There are some platforms that exist only virtually, which are blackmailers. Blackmail is an understatement,” he said.
Judge Bagchi said: “The problem is atomized social networks.” CJI Kant said, “It is a similar or different aspect of digital arrest. In cities and towns, there is a tendency to move away from the state capital where people flaunt their credentials as media persons and boldly display them on their vehicles for sideshows.” Sankaranarayanan told the Bench that he knows several advocates who have “Supreme Court Advocate” stickers on their cars to avoid paying highway tolls.
The bench suggested that since the issue of due process required a comprehensive approach, it would be better if the petition was withdrawn and re-filed with an expanded scope after April when the guidelines or SOPs for the police would be implemented.
Based on the court’s motion, Sankaranarayanan agreed to withdraw the case.
Published – 21 March 2026 23:21 IST
