Social Media: An Unguided Missile Needing Regulation

 The growth of responsible media is welcome; no other medium disseminates information or commentary with such speed. However, information circulated on these platforms must often be taken with a pinch of salt. Frequently, we are bombarded with fabricated narratives driven by purveyors with their own axes to grind. These individuals often fail to realise the damage they inflict on the credibility of information and the reputation of the media itself.

The root of this anarchy is a lack of binding ethics or values. While self-regulation is often emphasised, it remains, in reality, a charade. Unlike traditional media, social media lacks a "gatekeeper," making it a double-edged weapon. Artificial Intelligence, otherwise immensely useful, has further empowered bad actors to distort facts and manufacture narratives that suit their agendas.

Just today, we witnessed a prime example of this: a deluge of social media posts claiming that the West Bengal Chief Minister—a law graduate from a lesser-known college—argued the "SIR" (Special Intensive Revision) case in the Supreme Court with the prowess of a senior counsel. Viral photographs depicted her in an advocate’s robes, cementing this false narrative.

The truth, however, is legal and distinct. She appeared before the Court only as a party in person, a right permitted under Indian law. As a matter of fact, no Minister or Chief Minister can appear in court as an advocate.

This prohibition is grounded in Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which states that an advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any government or corporation. If an advocate takes up such employment, they must suspend their practice. While the Supreme Court has clarified that MPs and MLAs can practice (as they are elected representatives, not employees), the position for Ministers is different. Ministers hold an "Office of Profit" and perform full-time executive duties; thus, they are precluded from practising law to prevent a conflict of interest.

Despite this clear legal position, fake news about her "brilliant advocacy" is being peddled with reckless abandon. The reality of her performance was starkly different. While she certainly addressed the court, her arguments were legally lacking and, at times, frivolous. The language was untenable.

Ultimately, the issue here is not the Chief Minister, but the medium. Her case is merely a symptom of a larger malady. It is imperative that the government, in consultation with responsible media

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Uncouth Attitude of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister is Against the Basic Structure of the Constitution

Image
The behaviour of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin is often found to be uncouth, indecorous, and uncivilised. He has been generating controversy and turmoil that could be easily avoided. For instance, during Prime Minister Modi's recent visit to Tamil Nadu for official business, Mr. Stalin was absent without a plausible reason. His absence insulted the people of the state more than it did the Prime Minister, especially since he was in Rameshwaram to inaugurate the Pamban bridge, which connects the mainland of the state to the historic religious island. He and his party claim to uphold the Constitution of India, which emphasises three basic structural doctrines: federalism, judicial review, and fundamental rights. Therefore, it is courteous for Chief Minister Stalin to be present to receive the Prime Minister when he visits the state for governmental purposes. However, his absence in the official functions of Prime Minister demonstrates his arrogance, ignorance, and total disrespe...
Read more

Directions to the President and Governors are a constitutional overreach by the Supreme Court.

How can there be any difference in the views of Vice President Jagadeep Dhankhar regarding Article 142 of the Constitution, that it should not be used as a nuclear missile, but rather for complete justice, which is the intent of the Constitution? Despite having extraordinary powers, it is not accurate to say that the Supreme Court can do no wrong. The infamous case of ADM Jabalpur versus Shivakanta Shukla is a permanent stain on the judiciary, i.e. the Supreme Court, when it suspended fundamental rights to life. This case primarily addressed whether citizens could file a writ of habeas corpus to challenge unlawful detention during the Emergency. The Supreme Court's overreach has been felt many times in matters concerning constitutional posts. The cause of the current controversy is the recent case of ‘State of Tamil Nadu versus Union of India.’ In this case, the Supreme Court practically directed the Governors and the President of India to clear the bills within three months of the...
Read more

R N Ravi's case of Tamil Nadu must be revisited

 The Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, is not a cloistered virtue. The judgments of the courts are matters of record and can be critiqued by citizens of the country. The only limitation is that no motives should be attributed to the judges who deliver those judgments. However, it is a fact that judges are often influenced by their predilections and prejudices.  Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna is largely correct when he states that while serving as a judge, he or she does not belong to any religion or caste. Nonetheless, there have been many instances in which judges have revealed their religious biases. For example, while deciding Shayra Bano's case on triple talaq, Justice Nazeer did not sign the judgment because it conflicted with his religious beliefs. The Shayara Bano case was a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, where the practice of instant divorce was declared unconstitutional. Shayara Bano challenged the practice, arguing that it violated fundam...
Read more