1. In an era of internet vigilantism, would there be any impact on a fair trial due to interference of social media and public platforms ?
Ans. It depends on many factors. Social media can create public opinion based on half truths or misinformation, which can pressurize a judge to interpret evidence especially in a 50-50% chance case, in tune with the public opinion. A wavering judge may align his/her decision in favor of public opinion, lest he/she should be adversely criticized. But a trained judicial mind will not be influenced by external factors, but will be guided by the proof appearing from the evidence adduced in the case under trial. He/she will not succumb to the pressure exerted by social media. Similar is the case of prosecutors and investigators. Social media can easily affect a layman witness. It can affect the privacy of vulnerable victims also. Thus trial by media is a social evil.
2. With the rise of digital tools, how has the use of technology like digital courtrooms affected the judicial process? Do you think it's a step forward or a potential risk?
Ans. Digital courtrooms have made the administration of justice easy. At the same time, it poses questions of cyber security. Now, the filing of cases and documents are online and case flow management is digital and it reduces the time spent of administrative work, allowing the judges to spend more time on judicial work. Several dictation softwares are available to the judges for preparing their judgements, reducing the time spent for transcription. This ultimately benefits the litigant public. As far as litigants are concerned, they can take part in court proceedings through virtual mode like video conferencing. Various stakeholders like investigating agency, jail authorities, etc., are connected through digital tools which makes the administration of justice easy, saving time and money. The ultimate aim is a paperless courtroom. Digitalization of old records is underway. The judicial process becomes more effective with digital courtrooms but at the same time it poses challenges of cyber security. It creates a digital divide between those who are computer savvy and not. The transition to digital courtrooms also poses a lot of challenges which require to be addressed, in the context of docket explosion. Overall digital courtroom is a welcome feature for judiciary.
3. Trials sometimes mislead justice using loopholes in law. If this statement is true, do you think it can be corrected? How?
Ans. Law is intended to achieve justice. But the loopholes of law is often banked upon by shrewd lawyers to get a result in favor of their clients, resulting in injustice. Loopholes are gaps in law. Legislature and judiciary can play a pivotal role play a pivotal role to plug the loopholes in law. Sometimes loopholes occur due to the complexities of law. Whether a legislation has achieved its intended result, whether it is effective in curbing the menace or mischief, can be found only after trial and error method after a period of time after implementation. Amendment to the existing legislation with this objective in mind is a remedy to plug the loopholes.
4. The judiciary is often seen as slow and distant when compared to social media. How can the judiciary work to maintain or rebuild public trust, especially when certain decisions may be controversial?
Ans. Law's delay is a cliche. Justice delayed is justice denied. When justice is significantly delayed, people may lose faith in the legal system. Social media may be faster than the judiciary, but the social media can never take up the role of judiciary. A decision may be controversial for many reasons, but at the same time remaining legally correct. Understanding of legal principles by social media is not as in depth and sound as in the judiciary. A judge cannot appear in public platforms and explain why he/she decided a case in a particular way. For him the judgement speaks for him. A judge cannot resort to public relations in order to build up trust. But judiciary conducts legal awareness classes through legal services authority throughout the country. A large number of important decisions of court are reported in law journals and it is available for the public also. A matter sub-judice cannot be commended upon until the controversy is put at rest by a decision of the court. Live streaming of courtroom proceedings and alternate dispute redress systems are also effective in enhancing public trust in judiciary. Regaining or rebuilding public trust in judiciary is a misnomer, for the public trust is not lost, it is there and can only be enhanced.
5. Do you believe the current legal framework needs reforms to keep up with modern societal changes and the fast pace of technological advancements?
Ans. Existing legal framework has to evolve and keep pace with societal changes and technological advances. Existing law may not adequately address new legal problems. Information technology Act should be revamped frequently, keeping pace with the rapid advancement of technology. In the era of artificial intelligence and globalization, the mode of proof of digital evidence changes and so the law must be amended and changed to keep abreast of the changing needs and trends. Judiciary is lagging in infrastructure, perhaps due to financial constraints of the government and this has affected the effective functioning of the courts, when it comes to digital evidence. Courts will have to deal with more and more digital evidence and digital transactions and contracts in the coming years and so it is necessary to equip the judiciary also to meet the changing needs.