Answer

Introduction 

Digital vigilantism refers to the use of social media by individuals or groups to publicly shame and judge alleged offenders. Its rise reflects not only the misuse of free speech and risks to due process, but also delayed justice, institutional apathy and declining public faith in formal redressal mechanisms

Body

Arguments Supporting the View

• Institutional Delays Drive Online Exposure: Lengthy judicial processes and delayed justice compel victims to seek immediate visibility on social media for faster action.
  Eg: In the November 2022 airline misconduct case, action was taken only after the issue went public online.
• Lack of Trust in Formal Mechanisms: Victims often perceive police apathy, victim blaming, and intrusive procedures, discouraging formal complaints.
  Eg: The #MeToo movement relied on social media due to inadequate institutional response to harassment claims.
• Social Media as Alternative Redressal Platform: In absence of effective grievance systems, victims use digital platforms to bridge the gap between harassment and justice.
  Eg: TikTok and other platforms have been used to share harassment incidents to seek accountability.
• Crowd-Sourced Accountability due to Institutional Failure: Public outrage and viral exposure create pressure on institutions to act where they otherwise remain inactive.

Arguments Against the View

• Violation of Natural Justice Principles: Digital vigilantism bypasses due process, leading to judgments without verification or fair trial.
  Eg: Delhi HC noted that online statements can transcend free expression and trigger public shaming without verification.
• Risk of False Allegations and Anonymity Abuse: Social media enables unverified claims to spread rapidly, harming reputations without accountability.
  Eg: In the flight incident case, allegations were amplified without independent verification by media and influencers.
• Creation of Public Spectacle Instead of Justice: Online outrage prioritizes visibility over resolution, often turning serious issues into viral content.
  Eg: Viral posts in harassment cases often focus on outrage rather than legal closure.
• Not True Vigilantism but Misuse of Free Speech: Unlike classical vigilantism, these actions lack organised enforcement and can harm both victims and accused.

Conclusion

Thus, the issue is not merely one of free speech versus public shaming, but also of systemic failure that pushes people towards social media for justice. However, such online action must not bypass due process. Strengthening formal redressal mechanisms and restoring public faith in them is crucial to prevent digital vigilantism.

DOWNLOAD PDF