Image courtesy: Internet
In the fag
end of May, 2018, news channels flashed the story of Major Nitin Leetul Gogoi,
the army man who is hero to some and villain to some because of his
controversial act of tying a Kashmiri man to a jeep using him as a human shield
against the stone –pelters who were targeting army actions in Kashmir last
year. He became (in)famous to many because the clippings of his controversial
act became viral on the web. He grabbed the headlines again this month because
of his controversial Facebook friendship with a Kashmiri woman who, the media
says was trying to check in with the
Major and another person in a local hotel in Kashmir. It was reported that the
said woman had claimed that she knew the Major through Facebook and his account
was not in his real name. We know that social media including Facebook is used
for secret surveillance by the government agencies and it has positive and
negative aspects as well. Fake accounts are used by the police to detect and
trap criminals including paedophiles, fraudsters and even terrorists.
But
here, I am not actually concerned about pattern of use of social media by the
government officials. I am concerned about professional ethics of certain categories
of government servants who may not be allowed to befriend common people like
what social media offers. This category may include judges belonging to higher
and lower judiciary, government officials belonging to certain all India
services including group A and B of central services etc.
Let me
explain it broadly here:
Since
ancient times judges are considered to be of high moral and judiciary is
considered to be “an institution of integrity”. Several judgements including
K.P.Singh vs. High Court of H.P. &ors,[1]
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal,[2]
Tarak Singh vs. Jyoti Basu,[3]
etc had established the fact that judges are expected to be like hermit, they should be honest and should
“adhere to a code of moral value”.[4]
In short, they should be inapproachable personally but approachable as an institution to
be impartial. What does this mean? Judges cannot be on par with general
individuals who may approach the institution of justice, i.e., the courts for
seeking justice. They should not make themselves individually or privately
approachable so that the possible litigants, who may approach their courts, may not influence him. It is the
principle of fair justice which to a
large extent governs the code of conduct of judges. But we need to remember
that in this era of social media, any individual can hardly be out of the net . While it is still expected that
judges should not make themselves privately approachable, I myself have loads
of Facebook friends who are in the judiciary. They share opinions, their
personal photos with their chosen friends just like any other individual. But
yes, their circle of friends may not be as big as any other common social media
user. Many of them are directly connected with the Facebook pages of District
legal services authorities, which not only spread awareness about legal rights,
but also showcase performances of the particular government offices. However, I do not have Facebook friends from
higher judiciary, but nonetheless, many of “Their Lordships” may be easily approachable because of digital messaging services like WhatsApp,
which may be used to create ‘groups’ as well.[5]
World wide this has become a cause of concern now; it has been suggested by
many that judges while in service, should try to avoid social media as this may
pull them in unnecessary trouble and make floodgates open for questioning their
integrity.[6]
But again, we can neither ignore the strong (social media) presence of judges
like Justice Markendey Katzu, former Supreme Court judge who had courted
controversy because of his blog posts, social media posts for strong criticism
of court decisions.[7]
Doesn’t this show that he may still be considered as falling in the ‘restricted
netizen’ category even as a retired judge? Probably yes because he may never be seen as a general individual who may
criticise judges and their judicial understanding of cases by virtue of his
being a judge himself who is expected to not to lower the respect the
judiciary; probably no, because he
may still use his right to speech and expression to express his displeasure for
the judgements which according to him, are not fare. But still then, he could
not be equal to general individuals: the court questioned his act towards
publishing post in social media criticising court’s decision in crucial cases
like the final verdict of the sensational case of Soumya, who was killed by her
rapist.
High level civil servants including
bureaucrats, officers of Indian Police Services etc have a high presence in the
social media too. Most of their accounts may be private accounts. But there are
several pages of their offices which may be made by their respective offices.
This actually shows that even though the government and the courts continue to
question data policy of social media companies like Facebook or Twitter, these
social media sites are very much involved in government outreach mechanisms:
for example, see the websites of certain city police offices/headquarters; all
may show their Facebook presence. http://ahmedabadcitypolice.org/, https://www.bcp.gov.in/ ,
http://www.tnpolice.gov.in/CCTNSNICSDC/Index?0 ; all may have their Facebook and
twitter pages where individuals may access for information and even to reach
out concerned police offices for immediate lodging of complaints. But private
accounts of IAS or IPS officers are not connected with these pages. This means
that they have a separate private presence in the social media. Their friends,
their posts and their photographs are their private affairs just like any other
general individual who may use social media sites for reaching out to friends. But
still, they may not be out of surveillance for their conduct in their private
social media accounts. Their children may also be held accountable for sharing
parents’ pictures which may raise questions about their integrity: erstwhile
J&K DIG Beig invited hoards of controversy when his son posted certain
pictures of his dad which raised media
storm because the posts suggested that Beig was abusing power.[8]
Even though the son removed the posts, the pictures and hashtags were made
viral and they are still available on internet.
It may actually mean that these officers may not have a private life
even in social media. Gogoi in the same way, may also not have that privacy
even if he may claim that he and the woman in question personally knew each
other and this friendship was neither professional, nor was an abuse of power
for harassing the girl offline or online.
In
short, why such friendships between officers and civilians, their online
presence and activities may raise questions at all? Misuse of power to harass
and exploit civilians especially women could be one primary reason for such
enthusiasm. But in case the friendships are genuine, posts by the officials reflect
their personal and independent opinions and photographs shared in their social
media sites are personal memoire , why they should be targeted and who makes
these posts (in)famous for public and media? It is those ‘friends’ who may
knowingly or unknowingly feed the enthusiastic ‘third persons’ by sharing
/showing the private posts that may appear in their time line feeds. Remember
Merin Joseph, the young IPS officer from Kerala who being a police officer
herself, could not remain safe online? She had to encounter fake profiles with
her picture, trolls and misogynist posts even though she was sharing some posts
as a private person and not as an on duty officer. Trolls attacked her posts and albums, some of which were not for
public viewing. Privacy may be myth for these public servants especially
when they are active in their
private social media accounts. Compared
to 1990’s public servants have become more accountable now because of their web
presence. After each UPSC result declarations, the social media accounts of
successful candidates may immediately come into lime light. It works positively
because their conduct becomes more transparent to public; it works negatively
because they may slowly lose privacy being within the private social media
account. The very much private persons
suddenly come under lime light as not only the common people , but also the
media starts data mining to know them
more than what is expected to be known. One name which comes in my mind right
now is of Sandeep Nanduri, IAS, who is presently the District magistrate and collector
of Tuticorin district. He had taken over as DM and collector Tutircorin at a
very crucial time when the district was having agitation over Sterlite copper
industries plant closure issue. Nanduri’s Facebook account may reveal his activities
as a government official as well as a private individual. This may further mean
that not only he himself, but his wife may also be targeted by trolls, stalkers
and miscreants who may wish to approach him.
Untill
now there is no clear-cut code of conduct framed for restricting judges and
grade A and B officers of central government or even state government services from
using social media (except for certain
issues like restriction from spreading hatred, criticising the government in
certain key issues, leaking confidential data etc) and befriending common people. They however may have to rely
on the social media policies for data protection. But again, in such cases,
they may be held responsible for choosing their virtual friends. We should not
forget that there are instances of honey
trapping of government officials by ISI secret services; this may however show
that privacy of the government officials may easily be breached if they
themselves are not vigilant enough for their social media ‘friends’. There are
clearly two arguments which may made in this regard: (i) such government
servants may be completely barred from making themselves available to ‘public’
through their private social media
accounts , (ii) being part of digital India movement they must be
approachable to people through social media as well. However, considering the
privacy and security aspects, I feel it is high time that government makes a clear
policy as how they should be protected from predators and how they
should conduct even when they are ‘privately
public’.
Please
Note: Do not violate copyright of this blog. If you would like to use
informations provided in this blog for your own
assignment/writeup/project/blog/article, please cite it as “Halder D. (2018),
“Judges, cops and civil servants: Can they have Social media
friends in reality?”3rd June, 2018, published in http://debaraticyberspace.blogspot.com
[1]
LPA No. 163 of 2009
[3]
(2005)1 SCC 201
[5]
For example, see Maniar Gopi (2017),Vadodara:
Gujarat HC slams VMC commissioner for sending WhatsApp message to judge.
Published in India today on Semptember 8, 2017 https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/vadodara-gujarat-hc-vmc-commissioner-whatsapp-message-judge-1040341-2017-09-08
[6]
For better understanding, see Singh
Shaziah (2016), FRIEND REQUEST DENIED: JUDICIAL ETHICS AND SOCIAL MEDIA,
Published in Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet · Vol. 7 · 2016.
Accessed from https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=jolti
on 25.05.2018
[7]
For more understanding, see Vaidyanathan.A
(2017), Justice Markandey Katju Submits Apology In Supreme Court Over Post
Criticising Soumya Verdict, published in https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/justice-markandey-katju-apologises-to-supreme-court-over-post-criticising-soumya-verdict-1645845
on 06-01-2017. Accssed on 25-05-2018
,.
[8]
For example, see Bashaarat
Masood (2014),J&K DIG’s son posts photos of ‘Dad & I’ enjoying perks of
power, published in
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/jk-digs-son-posts-photos-of-dad-i-enjoying-perks-of-power/
on Octiober 29,2014. Accessed on 25.05.2018
