Social Media as a New Courtroom:

The Legal Limits of Online Media Trials and Aggression

 Introduction
Social media serves as an informal "court of public opinion," where rapid accusations and biased
narratives can undermine the judicial process and a person's right to a fair trial. While traditional
media faced similar issues, the speed and reach of social media platforms amplify online aggression
and the risk of prejudging individuals.

The conflict between free expression and fair trials

The fundamental conflict lies between two essential rights in a democratic society:
• Freedom of Speech and Expression: Social media, like the traditional press, provides
a platform for exercising this right. The public has a right to be informed, and activist media can
expose governmental inaction.
• Right to a Fair Trial: The Constitution in many countries guarantees the right to a fair
and speedy trial by an impartial and competent judge. This includes the presumption of innocence
until proven guilty.
This conflict becomes particularly contentious in high-profile cases where public opinion can be
swayed by sensationalized and unverified information shared online.

Dangers of social media as a courtroom

• Prejudice and bias: Online commentary, sensationalized reports, and user posts can
create a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before a verdict is reached. This can influence
witnesses, judges, and potential jurors.
• Harm to the accused: The accused can face intense public scrutiny, defamation, and
damage to their reputation and mental well-being, sometimes even before formal charges are filed.
• Influence on justice: Judges may be pressured to yield to public opinion, leading to a
trial that is not based strictly on the rules of law and evidence.

• Violation of privacy: Overzealous media, fueled by social media, can severely intrude
on an individual's right to privacy by publicly broadcasting personal information.

The Impact on Society

The influence of media trials on society is significant and multifaceted:
1. Shaping Public Opinion: Media coverage can frame cases in ways that influence how
the public perceives the involved parties and the legal system. The language, tone, and emphasis used
by the media can create narratives that resonate with audiences, often leading to polarized opinions.
2. Public Trust in the Judiciary: The portrayal of judicial proceedings in the media can
have a lasting impact on public trust in the legal system. Positive media coverage may enhance
confidence in judicial outcomes, while negative portrayals can foster skepticism and distrust. When
the public perceives that a trial is unfairly influenced by media narratives, it can lead to broader
concerns about the legitimacy of the judiciary.
 3. Social Movements and Advocacy: High-profile media trials can serve as catalysts for
social movements, galvanizing public sentiment around issues such as gender violence, racial
injustice, and accountability for powerful figures. The media’s role in amplifying these
movements can lead to significant societal changes, including shifts in public policy and legal
reforms.

State of media trial in Bangladesh

Freedom of press is a fundamental right which is guaranteed under article 39 of the Constitution of
Bangladesh. However, this freedom is not absolute and can be exercised subject to a reasonable
restrictions imposed by law in the interests of state security, friendly relations with foreign States,
public order, decency or morality. Similarly, limitations to this right can be characterised by contempt
of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. In addition, freedom of press does not allow the
mass media to conduct the trial of a case. But in many instances, media has been accused of
conducting the trial of the accused and creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before
or after a verdict has been handed down by a court. This type of media trial impinges upon the well-
established principle of criminal law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

As the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, so it is the duty of the prosecution to disprove the
presumption of innocence by proving all the elements of offences beyond every reasonable doubt.
Sometimes, it happens that the media prejudges the accused as convict and covers news on criminal
incidents. But in criminal proceedings, after completion of investigation, an accused may be
discharged or even after full trial he may also be acquitted. So, reporting on pending criminal cases
always involves a serious risk of prejudicing the rights of an accused. Moreover, journalists publish
photographs, previous crime records and self-incriminating statement of the accused which not only
interfere with the justice delivery system but also intrude upon the privacy of the persons involved.

No statements made in the custody of the police officer shall be proved as against the accused, as per
section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Only a statement made before Magistrate fulfilling the
requirements of section 164 Cr.P.C. will be admissible in the court of law. Ultimately, a media report
containing different statements of the accused gives an impression to the public that the accused has
confessed his guilt, so he must be punished. This type of media publicity also increases the risk of
biasness and influences the trial judges' sense of impartiality. In consequence, the mandate of article
35(3) of the Constitution gets affected. Article 35(3) of the Constitution states that every person
accused of a criminal offence shall have the right to a public trial by an impartial court.

In the Code of Conduct, 1993 which provides, 'it is the responsibility of the newspapers to publish
news relating to case under trial and to publish the final judgment of the court to reveal the actual
picture of issues relating to trial. But a journalist shall refrain from publishing such comment or
opinion as is likely to influence an under-trial case, until the final verdict is announced' (Rule 16). It
will amount to contempt of court if any writing or reporting is published to obstruct or interfere with
the due course of justice or the lawful process of the courts such as commenting on a case pending in
a court. So, the guilt or innocence of an accused will be determined by the court, media report will not
indicate anything on this issue.
Specific restrictions can be found in relevant legislation not to publish the name and identity of the
victims. Section 14(1) of the Suppression of Oppression of Women and Children Act, 2000 prohibits
the publication of the name of a victim of sexual offence. Non-compliance with this sub-section will
lead to the imprisonment for a period of maximum two years or fine not exceeding two lacs taka or
both. There is a special provision for children in the Children Act, 2013 which imposes restriction on
reporting in any newspaper which shall disclose any particulars of any case or proceeding in which a
child is involved and which leads directly or indirectly to the identification of such child (Section 28).
If a journalist publishes an objectionable report, a petition of complaint can be lodged against him/her
to the Chairman of the Press Council (Regulation 8:1 of the Press Council Regulation, 1980). After
conducting inquiry, if the Council finds the news is against the journalistic ethics may warn the
concerned journalist or newspaper (Section 12, The Press Council Act, 1974). In Motiur Rahman,
Editor The Daily ProthomAlo v Prof. Dr. Syed Anwar Hossain, Editor, The Daily Sun & Others, the
Press Council discharged the complaint issuing a warning against the Daily Sun to follow and
maintain the standard of journalistic ethics (Bangladesh Press Council Complaint No.3/2012).
Specific restrictions can be found in relevant legislation not to publish the name and identity of the
victims. The publicity of particulars will have detrimental effect on the process of reintegration of
victims in the society. Section 14(1) of the Suppression of Oppression of Women and Children Act,
2000 prohibits the publication of the name of a victim of sexual offence. Non-compliance with this
sub-section will lead to the imprisonment for a period of maximum two years or fine not exceeding
two lacs taka or both. There is a special provision for children in the Children Act, 2013 which
imposes restriction on reporting in any newspaper which shall disclose any particulars of any case or
proceeding in which a child is involved and which leads directly or indirectly to the identification of
such child (Section 28).
If a journalist publishes an objectionable report, a petition of complaint can be lodged against him/her
to the Chairman of the Press Council (Regulation 8:1 of the Press Council Regulation, 1980). After
conducting inquiry, if the Council finds the news is against the journalistic ethics may warn the
concerned journalist or newspaper (Section 12, The Press Council Act, 1974). In Motiur Rahman,
Editor The Daily ProthomAlo v Prof. Dr. Syed Anwar Hossain, Editor, The Daily Sun & Others, the
Press Council discharged the complaint issuing a warning against the Daily Sun to follow and
maintain the standard of journalistic ethics (Bangladesh Press Council Complaint No.3/2012).
At this moment, there is no Code of Conduct for the broadcasting media (i.e. radio, television)
journalists in Bangladesh. In 2014, the government approved National Broadcasting policy to ensure
transparency and accountability in broadcasting media. In order to establish a national broadcasting
commission and to punish for unauthorised broadcasting, the Broadcasting Act, 2016 was drafted
which has not been passed by the Parliament yet.

A viral video has recently captured the attention of social media: a young woman, voice trembling
with emotion, stands at a police station, demanding a public confession from a man accused of sexual
harassment. Her plea? To have him face a mob’s wrath for just ten minutes. The scene, raw and
intense, raises unsettling questions: Is this a cry for justice, or a dangerous step toward vigilante
retribution?
Undoubtedly, this act of “mob justice” is not only illegal but also violates numerous fundamental
rights of the accused, guaranteed by both the constitution and international law. Ironically, after the
video went viral, the girl herself became the target of a social media mob. She was trolled, slut-
shamed and subjected to character assassination, facing a media trial for her unlawful demand and her
behavior with military personnel. It is important to note that when an individual accused of a crime is
beaten by a crowd or group of people, it is referred to as mob justice. Such was the case with
Tofazzal, who was accused of theft, brutally beaten, and subsequently died from his injuries. When
such incidents occur entirely on social media, with widespread public condemnation, it transforms
into a form of ‘mob media trial,’ where social media platforms essentially take on the role of a
courtroom. Both instances—mob justice and mob-driven media trials—are equally unacceptable,
violating fundamental Human Rights . Article 31 of the Constitution of Bangladesh protects not only
life but also reputation, both of which are fundamental rights.
These actions infringe on individuals’ right to a fair trial (Article 35), right to defense (Article 33),
protection of law (Article 31) as protected under constitution. In addition, the presumption of
innocence until proven guilty is also protected under Article 11 of The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) guarantees the right to a fair trial. Collectively, these provisions highlight that justice must
be pursued through lawful processes, and not through public condemnation or social media trials,
which bypass legal scrutiny. Moreover, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) emphasizes the importance of legal frameworks that
protect women from violence and discrimination, particularly in cases of gender-based violence,
where mob justice often intensifies injustices against women. For instances, Farokul and his
associates harassed several women at Cox’s Bazar beach in front of a crowd, forcing them to perform
sit-ups while holding their ears, which was subsequently shared widely on social media.
In the standard criminal justice process of Bangladesh, the trial system begins with a complaint or
FIR, followed by an investigation to verify the allegations according to Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC). The case proceeds to trial only if sufficient evidence supports the claim, where both sides
present their evidence and witness statements, ultimately leading to a final verdict by judge. In a mob
trial, however, an accusation is made and before any investigation or legal proceedings take place, the
accused is judged by the public, often condemned as guilty even if innocent. There is no investigation,
no court, no judge, no hearing, no evidence—just a mass public verdict.
According to Constitution of Bangladesh, a person has both the right to free speech (Article 39) and
fair trial (Article 35). However, when one’s excessive use of freedom of speech infringes upon
another’s right to a fair trial, a violation occurs as it is not unrestricted right. In this era of exposure, it
is easy to make false allegations against someone. However, due to widespread circulation, victims
face a dangerous reality: social media platforms become battlegrounds where allegations, whether true
or false, can destroy someone’s life without due process. The core principle of a fair trial that a
person is innocent until established guilty is completely disregarded. Personal vendettas and public
shaming are being used as tools to deliver punishment, denying the accused their right to access
justice. The accused are publicly boycotted, hated and subjected to cyber bullying, defamation and
mob justice.
The trauma inflicted by online harassment, trolling, and public shaming can be more severe and long-
lasting than physical harm. Unlike mob lynching, which causes direct physical harm, mob media
trials cause indirect gradual mental anguish, leaving scars that may never heal. The accused, even if
later found innocent, often live with the mental trauma of having been unjustly condemned by
society, causes him to suffer every day, stunting his personal growth, which is no less than a gradual
cessation of life and in extreme cases, even lead to suicide.
To control mob justice , the police officer can take reasonable steps under Section 149 of CrPC to
prevent any cognizable offense. Even police are authorized to arrest individuals without a warrant as
per Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), addressing extra-judicial killings by mobs.
The Contempt of Court Act 2013 prevents the publication of any material that could prejudice
ongoing legal cases. Moreover, Cyber Security Act 2023 covers defamation (Section 29), the spread
of false information (Section 25), and inciting violence or hatred through digital platforms (Section
28). These provisions, along with Section 499 of the Penal Code of 1860, which addresses
defamation, allow the government to take legal action against individuals who use social media to
harm the reputation of others or spread harmful content. However, the Mental Health Act 2018 is still
underdeveloped and the recognition of mental well-being as a fundamental right has yet to emerge.
The WHO’s Mental Health Action Plan for the South-East Asia Region (2023-2030) emphasizes a
human rights-based approachto mental health, recognizing mental well-being as essential for a
fulfilling life.

Media's Vulnerability to Contempt Charges

In many cases, journalists may be accused not of misreporting facts, but of undermining the public’s
trust in the judiciary. This highlights a crucial issue within the scope of contempt law: the potential of
a journalist’s report to affect public perception of the courts, regardless of whether the facts are
correct.
While journalists may be careful in presenting the facts of cases, their reporting often goes beyond the
mere presentation of facts to include analysis and opinion, especially on judicial conduct. This can
lead to situations where the line between legitimate criticism and contempt of court becomes blurred,
resulting in journalists being charged with criminal contempt for actions that are, in essence, part of
their journalistic duties.

The Lack of Truth as a Defense in Contempt Cases

One of the most controversial aspects of contempt law in Bangladesh is that the truth of the statement
does not necessarily serve as a valid defense. In other areas of law, truth is considered an absolute
defense to defamation claims, but in contempt proceedings, the focus is not on the veracity of the
statement but rather on its potential impact on the authority and public confidence in the judiciary. A
journalist may be held guilty of contempt if their report, regardless of its factual accuracy, has the
potential to undermine public trust in the judicial system or to disrespect the judiciary's authority.
This has raised concerns regarding freedom of the press in Bangladesh, where journalists are often
caught between the necessity of reporting on judicial matters and the fear of facing legal
consequences for reporting that may be interpreted as undermining the dignity of the courts.

The Press’s Role in Shaping Public Opinion on the Judiciary

In Bangladesh, media outlets are frequently engaged in discussions regarding court decisions, judicial
behavior, and the conduct of individual judges.
For example, when journalists criticize the decisions made by judges or report on controversial cases,
the media can be accused of scandalizing the court if the report is deemed to diminish public respect
for the judiciary. The law places an additional burden on journalists.
 Legal Framework

1. Constitution of Bangladesh
• Article 39 guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
•But Article 39(2) allows “reasonable restrictions” on that freedom for, among others, contempt of
court, defamation, incitement of offense, public order, morality etc.

2. Contempt of Court Law

• The Contempt of Court Act, 1926 is in force (though there have been attempts to update or
replace it)
• The law gives power to courts to punish those who by words, signs, or acts:
• violate a verdict, decree, order, writ or warrant issued by a court,
• demoralize a court,
• obstruct the administration of justice,
• defame or slander a court, or
• personally criticize a judge performing judicial duties.

3. Press Council / Journalistic Codes

• The Bangladesh Press Council has a Code of Conduct for Journalists (1993, amended 2002).
• For example, Section 16 of that Code says that journalists should refrain from publishing
opinions or comments likely to influence an under-trial case until a final verdict is announced

4. Sub judice Principle / Court Directives

• The Supreme Court has issued circulars clarifying that media should not publish or broadcast
news that may hurt the court’s image, reputation, or influence case proceedings.
• High Courts have sometimes issued orders to prevent media “parades” of arrested persons,
briefings that might amount to media trials, etc.
 What’s Not Allowed (or is Risky)
• Declaring / treating (implicitly or explicitly) the accused as guilty before judicial verdict.
• Publishing opinions or commentary over an under-trial case that could influence judgment.
• Publishing arguments or discussions between judges and lawyers that are part of the court
proceedings, before verdict.
• Any reporting that might undermine public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality.
• Slanderous or libelous statements against judges in their official capacity.
• Violations of direct court orders forbidding publication of specific details.

Recent Developments / Important Cases

• High Court’s 2013 ruling that the Contempt of Court Act 2013 (or parts of it) was
unconstitutional.
• The Supreme Court clarified in 2019 that media should avoid making publications that may
influence ongoing court proceedings.
• The Bangladesh Press Council’s statements asking media to not publish opinions on under-
trial cases and to avoid publishing judge-lawyer arguments in ongoing cases.
# Media as a watchdog ensuring justice in Bangladesh
The media plays a crucial watchdog role in promoting justice and accountability in Bangladesh,
though it operates in a complex environment marked by both progress and significant challenges.
 Media as a watchdog ensuring justice in Bangladesh
The media plays a crucial watchdog role in promoting justice and accountability in Bangladesh,
though it operates in a complex environment marked by both progress and significant challenges:

1.Positive Roles of Media as a Watchdog in Bangladesh

• High-profile exposés by newspapers like Prothom Alo, Daily Star, and New Age have
pressured authorities to take legal or disciplinary action.
• Investigative journalism in Bangladesh has uncovered major corruption cases involving
politicians, public officials, and businesses.

2. Highlighting Human Rights Violations

• The media often reports on extrajudicial killings, custodial torture, disappearances, and other
abuses by law enforcemen.
• Coverage of cases like the Rifat Sharif murder, Sagar-Runi murder, and Nasirnagar attacks
has helped bring public attention and, at times, judicial intervention.

3. Public Pressure for Justice

• For example, the widespread coverage of rape and violence against women has led to protests
and legal reforms, such as harsher penalties for sexual assault.

4. Ensuring Electoral Integrity

• Journalists play a role in monitoring elections and reporting irregularities, vote rigging, or
voter suppression—essential for democratic accountability.

Challenges to the Media’s Watchdog Role

1. Legal and Political Constraints

• Laws like the Digital Security Act (DSA) have been used to intimidate journalists, stifle
criticism, and limit investigative reporting.
• Several journalists have been arrested or harassed under the DSA for reporting on sensitive
issues.

2. Ownership and Political Influence

• Many media outlets are owned by business groups or individuals with political affiliations.
3. Threats and Violence
• Journalists in Bangladesh often face threats, physical attacks, or even murder.

4. Censorship and Internet Control

• Online news portals and social media are increasingly monitored, with takedowns of content
critical of the government or powerful individuals.

Ways to Strengthen the Media’s Watchdog Role

• Reform or repeal the Digital Security Act to ensure press freedom.
• Ensure safety and legal protection for journalists.
• Promote media literacy to help the public identify propaganda and support credible
journalism.
• Encourage independent journalism through grants, training, and international partnerships.
• Hold perpetrators accountable for attacks on journalists and press freedom.
 Historical cases of Bangladesh that faced media trial

Media Trials in Bangladesh

Media trials in Bangladesh have occurred in several high-profile cases where public opinion, driven
by media coverage, arguably influenced the judicial process. A “media trial” refers to situations where
media outlets—through reporting, commentary, or sensationalism—create public pressure and
possibly sway the legal process before a formal court judgment is delivered.

1. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Assassination Case (1996–2010)

Background:
 Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding leader of Bangladesh, was assassinated in 1975.
 The Indemnity Ordinance protected the killers for years until the Awami League reopened the
case in 1996.
Media Involvement:
 Extensive media coverage and public campaigns kept the case alive in public consciousness.
 From 1996 onward, media attention focused strongly on the trial and accused.
Media Trial Elements:
 Continuous reporting on the accused shaped public opinion.
 Critics argue strong media bias compromised judicial neutrality.
Outcome:
 In 2010, five accused were executed.

2. International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) – War Crimes Trials (2010–present)

Background:
 The ICT was established to try crimes committed during the 1971 Liberation War.
Key Figures Tried:
 Jamaat-e-Islami leaders, including Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and Ghulam Azam.
Media Trial Allegations:
 Media pressure and public outrage intensified, especially after the Shahbagh Movement
(2013).
 Certain newspapers and TV channels portrayed accused as guilty before verdicts.
International Criticism:
 Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International raised concerns about a “media-fueled
atmosphere” compromising fair trials.
3. Tonu Murder Case (2016)
Background:
 Sohagi Jahan Tonu, a college student, was raped and murdered inside a cantonment area.
Media and Social Media Pressure:
 News and social platforms exploded with coverage and speculation.
 Early media reports fueled public belief of a military cover-up.
Media Trial Concerns:
 Accusations spread without concrete evidence.
 Suspicion was cast on multiple parties before investigations concluded.
Outcome:
 The case remains unsolved, with criticism directed at both media handling and investigation
quality.

4. Abrar Fahad Murder Case (2019)

Background:
 BUET student Abrar Fahad was beaten to death by peers allegedly linked to the ruling party’s
student wing (BCL).
Media Coverage:
 Graphic details and video footage dominated news and social media.
 Public condemnation occurred immediately, before court proceedings.
Media Trial Elements:
 Accused were labeled guilty in reports before trial.
 Although evidence supported charges, media pressure raised impartiality concerns.
Outcome:
 In 2021, the court sentenced 20 to death and 5 to life imprisonment.

5. Pori Moni Case (2021)

Background:
 Actress Pori Moni was arrested in a drugs case by the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB).
Media Sensationalism:
 Focus was placed on her lifestyle, photos, and character.
 She was portrayed as guilty before trial.
Media Trial Criticism:
 Journalists and human rights activists condemned the “character assassination.”
 Allegations circulated without substantive legal process.
Outcome:
 Pori Moni was released on bail, claiming the charges were part of a harassment campaign.

Significant Case Laws :

• Mainul Hosein vs. Sheikh Hasina Wazed (53 DLR 138): This case reiterated that
contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. The contemner is entitled to the benefit of the
doubt, and the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The
court must be cautious in issuing contempt orders, ensuring that the allegations are not based on
inaccurate or exaggerated statements.
• Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Shah Azizur Rahman (52 DLR 159):
The court emphasized that contempt proceedings must be based on clear evidence and the intent
behind the conduct. The burden of proof lies with the petitioner, and the standard of proof is beyond a
reasonable doubt.
• Abdul Jabbar vs. State (44 DLR 21): In cases where there is no mens rea (intent), the
court may not hold an individual guilty of contempt. This principle underlines the importance of
intent in determining whether an act amounts to contempt.
• Rafiqul Alam vs. Bangladesh (50 DLR 628): This case emphasized that contempt
petitions should not be filed on the basis of inaction or failure to comply with an order if alternative
enforcement mechanisms are available. Simply not complying with a court order does not
automatically equate to contempt.

Punishment for Contempt of Court

In Bangladesh, the punishment for contempt of court is not specified in any statute. As a result, the
punishment depends on the discretion of the court, guided by previous case law. The court may
impose fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the nature and severity of the contempt.
While contempt of court can result in imprisonment, most cases involve fines, especially for less
serious acts of contempt. However, the decision to impose punishment is highly subjective, influenced
by the facts of the case and the intent of the contemner.
The court is also empowered to impose punitive measures such as imprisonment for defiant behavior
or actions that endanger the integrity of the judicial process.

Balancing Media Freedom and Judicial Integrity

As the media landscape continues to evolve, it is imperative to find a balance between protecting
judicial integrity and upholding media freedom.
 1. Freedom of Press
 Article 39 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press but imposes reasonable
restrictions to ensure fair trials.
2. Judiciary vs. Media
 Excessive media coverage can prejudice trials, but constructive criticism of judicial
delays or inefficiencies is encouraged.
 The judiciary must distinguish between legitimate press freedom and contemptuous
reporting.
3. Amendments to the Contempt of Courts Act: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, may need to
be revisited to address the challenges posed by digital media. Clearer definitions and
guidelines on what constitutes contempt in the digital age could help in better enforcement of
the law.
4. Judicial Guidelines for Media: The judiciary can play a proactive role by issuing guidelines
for media coverage of judicial proceedings. These guidelines should emphasise responsible
reporting and the need to avoid sensationalism that could prejudice ongoing trials.
5. Media Literacy and Ethics: Media organisations should invest in training their journalists and
editors on legal ethics and the implications of contempt of court. Media literacy programs can
also help the public understand the importance of judicial integrity and the dangers of
prejudicing legal proceedings through irresponsible reporting.
6. Regulation of Social Media: Governments and social media companies need to collaborate to
develop mechanisms that prevent the spread of contemptuous content. This could include
algorithms that detect and flag potentially prejudicial content, as well as stricter enforcement
of existing laws against online harassment and misinformation.
7. Public Awareness Campaigns: Public awareness campaigns can help educate people about the
legal consequences of contempt of court and the importance of respecting the judicial process.
Such campaigns can also highlight the role of responsible journalism in a democratic society.

The Global Perspective on Contempt of Court and Media Freedom

The issue of contempt of court in the context of media freedom is not unique to India. Many countries
grapple with similar challenges and a comparative analysis can provide valuable insights into how
different legal systems balance these competing interests.
1. United States: In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of
speech and press, which is zealously protected. However, this freedom is balanced against the need to
ensure fair trials. The U.S. legal system has developed doctrines like “clear and present danger” to
assess when speech can be restricted. In cases like Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), the U.S. Supreme
Court recognised that excessive media coverage could prejudice a fair trial, leading to measures like
gag orders to control pre-trial publicity.
2. United Kingdom: The UK has a more restrictive approach to media coverage of
judicial matters. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibits publications that create a “substantial
risk” of prejudice to ongoing proceedings. The principle of “sub judice” restricts media reporting on
active cases to prevent undue influence on the judicial process. The UK courts have not hesitated to
hold media outlets in contempt when their reporting is deemed to interfere with justice.
3. Australia: In Australia, the law of contempt is also used to protect the integrity of the
judicial process. Similar to the UK, the principle of sub judice applies and the courts can issue
suppression orders to limit media coverage that might prejudice a fair trial.
4. Canada: Canada follows a balanced approach where freedom of the press is highly
valued, but restrictions are imposed when necessary to ensure a fair trial. The Canadian Supreme
Court in Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.(1994) introduced a test that requires a court to
consider whether a publication ban is necessary to prevent a serious risk to the fairness of the trial.
This test seeks to balance the rights of the media with the need to protect judicial proceedings.

Challenges in the Modern Media Landscape

The advent of digital media and social media platforms has added new dimensions to the issue of
contempt of court. Unlike traditional media, digital platforms allow instantaneous and widespread
dissemination of information, making it difficult to control prejudicial content.
1. Social Media: Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have
become powerful tools for communication. However, the unregulated and rapid spread of information
on these platforms can lead to situations where contemptuous content is widely circulated, often
before the judiciary can intervene. The anonymity afforded by social media also makes it challenging
to hold individuals accountable for contemptuous statements.
2. Fake News and Misinformation: The spread of fake news and misinformation on
digital platforms poses a significant challenge to the judiciary. When false information about ongoing
legal proceedings is disseminated, it can create public misconceptions and undermine the credibility
of the judicial process. Combating such misinformation requires a concerted effort from both legal
authorities and media regulators.
3. Globalisation of Media: The globalisation of media means that content generated in
one country can easily influence public opinion in another. This is particularly relevant in high-profile
cases with international ramifications. The extraterritorial nature of digital media makes it difficult for
national laws to effectively regulate content that may be contemptuou

Conclusion
In today’s digital age, social media has emerged as a powerful “new courtroom”, where public
opinion is rapidly shaped, cases are tried in the court of public perception, and justice is often
demanded outside traditional legal frameworks. Platforms like Facebook, X (Twitter), and YouTube
have become spaces where victims share their stories, whistleblowers expose wrongdoings, and
citizens hold powerful actors accountable.

While this shift has democratized access to justice, amplified marginalized voices, and accelerated
public awareness, it also raises serious concerns: misinformation, trial by media, mob justice, and lack
of due process. Social media can pressure authorities to act, but it can also lead to digital vigilantism,
where accusations spread faster than facts and reputations are damaged without proper investigation.

In conclusion, while social media can complement the formal justice system by amplifying voices and
demanding accountability, it should not replace the principles of fair trial, evidence-based judgment,
and rule of law. A balanced approach is essential—one that harnesses the strengths of digital platforms
while upholding the integrity and impartiality of the media.

References
1. 1. TA Hoffmeister, Social Media in the Courtroom: A New Era for Criminal Justice? (Praeger
2014).
2. ‘Justice and Social Media’ in Open Justice in the Digital Age (Springer 2024) 145.
3. TA Hoffmeister and H Bromberg (eds), Research Handbook on Social Media and the Law
(Edward Elgar 2025).
4. Michael Elliott, ‘Trial by Social Media: The Rise of Litigation Crowdfunding’ (2018) 84
University of Cincinnati Law Review.
5. Thaddeus Hoffmeister and Ann Charles Watts, ‘Social Media, the Internet, and Trial by Jury’
(2018) 14 Annual Review of Law & Social Science 259.
6. PD Schutz and AJ Cannon, ‘Trial by Tweet? Findings on Facebook? Social Media Innovation
or Degradation?’ (2013) 5 International Journal for Court Administration 25.
7. S Mazumder, MSB Tonmoy and F Shahriar, ‘Trails of Media Trial: Impacts on Judiciary and
Society in Bangladesh’ New Media and Mass Communication.
8. MT Islam and SK Kobra, ‘Media Trial and its Present Trend of Ensuring Justice in
Bangladesh’ (2021) IV(1) International Journal of Law Management & Humanities.
9. Mustak Ahmed, ‘Social Media as Tools of Mob Violence and Mob Trials: A Study on South
Asia with Special Focus on Bangladesh’ (Preprint, 2025)
https://preprints.org/manuscript/202504.2021/v1 accessed 14 September 2025.
10. DA Ovi and M Sakib, ‘Beyond the Lens: Assessing Media Trials and Privacy Rights in
Bangladesh’ (2024) 5(1) Indonesian Journal of Law and Society.
11. RS Lodhi and P Agrawal, ‘Media Trial in Indian Legal System: A Critical Review’ (2025) 11
International Journal of Environmental Sciences s5 814 https://doi.org/10.64252/jcgdbw33
accessed 14 September 2025.
12. Arnab Basu, ‘Revealing Media Trials in Indian Law: Critical Analysis’ (2024) 6 Journal of
Social Science and Humanities 173 https://doi.org/10.53469/jssh.2024.6(11).35 accessed 14
September 2025.
13. Priyanshu Palariya, ‘Freedom of Press and Trial by Media’ (2023) 6(5) International Journal
of Law Management & Humanities 322 https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.115787 accessed 14
September 2025.
14. Leena Chandran, ‘Trial by Media: Its Implications on Fair Trial and Administration of Justice
in India’ (2021) 3(2) International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation
https://ijlsi.com/19-trial-by-media-its-implications-on-fair-trial-and-administration-of-justice-
in-india/ accessed 14 September 2025.
15. Kapil Bhatia, ‘Media Trial: An Analysis and its Latest Judicial Trends’ (2021) 4(3)
International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 5715
https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.111236 accessed 14 September 2025.
16. Lity Manisha and Meghna Rawat, ‘Trial by Media: Undermining of the Indian Judiciary’
(2021) 3(4) International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation 434
https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLSI.11931 accessed 14 September 2025.
 17. Megha Mishra, ‘Media Trial in India’ (2022) 4(3) International Journal of Legal Science and
Innovation 107 https://doi.org/10.10000/IJLSI.111407 accessed 14 September 2025.
Books
18. Lieve Gies (ed), Trial by Media: Participatory Justice in a Networked World (Palgrave
Macmillan 2025).
19. Tom Crone, Tom Cassels and Estelle Overs, Law and the Media (4th edn, Routledge 2013).
20. Dokun Bojuwade, Mass Media on Trial (Dokun Bojuwade 1981).
21. Peter Dahlin, Trial By Media: China’s New Show Trials, and the Global Expansion of
Chinese Media (Safeguard Defenders 2018).