"Judicial Functions Have Become Sensitive Because Of Unregulated Social Media": Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has raised eyebrows over unchecked social media trolling and criticism of the judiciary, and has opined that lack of regulation has rendered the judicial functioning more sensitive and volatile these days.A Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo made the following comment while partially allowing a writ petition against...
The Orissa High Court has raised eyebrows over unchecked social media trolling and criticism of the judiciary, and has opined that lack of regulation has rendered the judicial functioning more sensitive and volatile these days.
A Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo made the following comment while partially allowing a writ petition against premature retirement of a senior Judicial Officer –
“Judging is difficult”, said U.S. Judge Richard A Posner. And being a judge is also. Nowadays, judicial functions by their very nature have become sensitive for several reasons, one of them being unregulated social media.”
The petitioner, Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo joined the Odisha Judicial Service (OJS) in the year 1997 compulsorily retired from service in March 2022. Impugning the removal order, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
While opposing the relief claimed by the petitioner, the State submitted that amongst other serious accusations, one serious allegation against the Judicial Officer was that the Bar had once boycotted his Court.
The Court, however, promptly nixed the suggestion that the petitioner should be held responsible for the fact that the Bar cold-shouldered him. Justice Shripad, who authored the judgment, cited the ruling in District Bar Association, Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 331 which held boycott of Courts by Bar to be illegal.
It also underlined that judges facing opposition from the Bar is not uncommon and even Judges/Judicial Officers of unblemished track record sometimes become subject to the Bar's ire. It also highlighted the negative role played by the unregulated social media in making adjudication sensitive in this era.
“It is not uncommon that even tall judges of unimpeachable integrity at times suffer the ire of public and face red eye of a section of the Bar. Unless the material is loaded to the CCR/PAR as an adverse entry in due process, no Judicial Officer can be put to prejudice,” it held.
Above all, the Court was of the view that if Judges are to be blamed for they themselves being subjected to illegal boycott by the Bar, it would be like “placing premium on illegality”.
Therefore, considering the aforesaid factor along with all relevant materials, the Court set aside the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. However, instead of reinstating him in the service, the Bench remitted his case back to the Review Committee in order to ascertain his suitability as to restoration of judgeship.
Case Title: Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 11654 of 2022
Date of Judgment: July 11, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. (Dr.) Purusottam Chuli, P. Nath, A. Routray, (Dr.) S. Patnaik and (Ms.) S. Patnaik, Advocates
Counsel for the State: Mr. Prabhu Prasanna Behera, Addl. Standing Counsel
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 90