On a seemingly ordinary August morning, advocate Astha Sharma woke to find the inbox to her LinkedIn and Instagram accounts inundated with hate mail. The Supreme Court had just begun hearing the RG Kar case—where a female doctor was found raped and murdered in a Kolkata hospital earlier this year in August. Sharma, along with her colleagues, was representing the state of West Bengal and Kolkata police, though, a misguided online campaign had convinced the public that they were representing the accused and should face the wrath for it.
The messages were chilling:
“I curse them all these lawyers ... they will see same things happen with their love ones..."
“Most of them are women's...see they r defending rapist. Bhagwan na kare Kal inki beti ke sath rape ho or tab inhe pta lage dard ka…(God forbid, tomorrow their daughters will be raped, then they will understand the pain)"
“Instead of others...these lawyers family should suffer, then they will fix every system of India…”
Sharma wasn't alone. Her colleagues, particularly the women, faced similar threats. The catalyst? A video released by BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawala, where he read out the names of the 21 advocates representing the state of West Bengal.
“Today these lawyers - biggest lawyers of India - led by Kapil Sibal are on side of government of West Bengal, not the Beti, not the victim of RG Kar," Poonawala declared, implying that the lawyers were shielding the rape accused.
The RG Kar Case: Lawyers Caught in the Crossfire
On August 19, on the eve of the first hearing, the Supreme Court registry informed lawyers that the RG Kar case would be livestreamed. The court's decision to livestream the proceedings had inadvertently put a target on the lawyers' backs.
Lawyers associated with the case found this move surprising, because primarily, this was a sexual assault case before it became the issue of protesting doctors. “We were surprised but we rolled with it,” said an advocate working with Astha Sharma.
With over 358,490 people watching the first hearing live on YouTube, it became easy for trolls to match names with faces. The hearings were also simultaneously aired live on several news and YouTube channels amplifying the coverage and the viewership.
“When people read your name in an order, or read about the case in the paper or online, it is different," Sharma explained. "But this was different. There was a face to put with those names," she added.
“It felt as though we were under constant scrutiny,” one of the female advocates who got trolled said. She recalled her mother’s message to her during the hearing: “Don’t laugh, don’t smile, don’t fidget.”
The hate campaign lasted for weeks. Women lawyers, in particular, faced threats of sexual violence and acid attacks. Their social media accounts were flooded with friend requests and abusive messages. “The people in the comment section are educated people,” Sharma added. “If you see their profiles, a lot of them are doctors, CAs, lawyers who probably advocate for safe working places for their female colleagues, but respond in such unsavory manner,” she told Decode.
The trolling stooped to such a low that Sharma’s female colleagues petitioned her for precautionary measures like CCTV and guards outside the office. The women being trolled acknowledged that the week following the release of Poonawala’s video was tough. The real fear stemmed from the worry whether the online violence would translate to offline violence. This was especially stressful for colleagues who live by themselves.
“It was affecting my colleagues to such an extent that I gave them the option to either sit out of this case, or not have their names published in this case,” Sharma told Decode.
The comments sections on the Poonawala video were hurtful, advocate Mehreen Garg, one of the nine women lawyers representing the West Bengal government, said. “We were even called escorts in some of them," she said. “I don't know where this slut shaming came from."
The impact rippled beyond the lawyers themselves. Families faced second-hand trolling, with parents receiving distressing messages about their daughters. Sharma recalled the difficult conversation she had with her parents: “I had to sit them down and tell them everything. All the threats, the rape comments, everything."
Sharma recounted the chilling threats she received: “We got messages like, 'we will throw acid on your face' and 'you'll learn your lesson when you're found lying on the side of the street.'" These menacing words pushed her to a breaking point. “That's when I decided I had to respond," she explained.
Her decision to speak out on LinkedIn inadvertently alerted her parents to the danger she was facing. “News agencies picked up my post, and someone shared one of those reports in a WhatsApp group my father was in, asking if it was about me," Sharma said. It was a jarring way for her family to discover the threats she'd been enduring in silence.
Garg found herself at the center of a familial storm. “My parents, both doctors, were deeply invested in this case," she explained. “They'd receive messages from friends and colleagues asking, 'What is your daughter doing? How can she represent the accused?'" Despite the public pressure, Garg's parents stood firmly by her side. “News channels were flashing that nine female lawyers were representing the accused, but my parents corrected those who questioned them," she added, a note of pride in her voice.
For Suparna* and her colleague Apurva*, the concern manifested differently. "Our mothers started calling us more frequently than usual," Suparna shared. "They were particularly worried because we're away from home." The intensity of their mothers' concern was palpable. "We'd have to report in when we left home, reached the office or court, and sometimes even in between," Suparna explained. "And no matter the hour, we'd get calls at night asking if we'd made it home safely."
Clickbait Videos
The livestreaming also led to sensationalised media coverage. Clickbait video titles like "Solicitor General Lashes Out At Kapil Sibal" and "CJI Rips into Sibal Plea" went viral, further fueling public misunderstanding.
Clips made from the original videos were shared out of context as memes. Leading news agencies posted YouTube videos with clickbait titles to amplify and portray confrontational narrative. Several meme pages shared reels of Sibal laughing in court.
Advocate Astha Sharma acknowledged that Sibal was brutally trolled, but with a difference. “The threats against women are always sexual in nature,” she said.
Calls to Stop Livestreaming Sensitive Cases
After the second hearing when the trolling was at its peak, several attempts were made to stop the livestreaming of the RG Kar case. Senior advocate and ex-Law minister Kapil Sibal petitioned the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in court saying, “What happens when you livestream matters like this which has huge emotive implications...,” Sibal told the three-judge bench hearing the matter.
“We are not representing the accused…It's also about our reputation…Where was I laughing? This is not fair! It spreads to the women in our chambers,” Sibal had said.
The top court however denied Sibal’s request saying it was a matter of public importance. The court further refused to stop livestreaming, assuring lawyers that it would take care of any threats.
Decode spoke to several advocates, sitting judges and retired judges for their view on livestreaming of cases. Almost all agreed that livestreaming, while bringing transparency to judicial proceedings, must be subject to certain conditions. The top court’s Swapnil Tripathi judgement that greenlit livestreaming of judicial proceedings, too cautioned against airing cases pertaining to sexual assualt.
“It is a treat to hear some senior lawyers argue during constitutional bench matters. It is a masterclass in law and there is so much one can learn. But in my opinion, such matters (sexual assault cases) need not be livestreamed,” advocate Shiuli* said.
A retired judge said only those cases with larger public interest must be aired live - like constitution bench matters or PILs. He said one of the perils of livestreaming court cases is that certain comments, observations tend to be taken “out of context”.
A month after the Supreme Court cautioned judges to be mindful that proceedings were being livestreamed and against making “random, gratuitous and unwarranted remarks” during such times, a Karnataka High Court judge came under fire for an unsolicited comment where he referred to an area in Bengaluru as Pakistan. Clips of that video on on Live Hindustan’s YouTube channel was viewed 156k times. The clips on other accounts were equally viral and garnered views in millions.
One of the woman advocates in the RG Kar matter said it was probably society’s anger at the crime that was “misdirected” towards them. “The livestreaming enabled the hearing to became reality TV,” another said, probably rationalising the incident.
"Answer to sunlight is more sunlight. Not to suppress what happens in the Court," CJI Chandrachud had remarked when faced with pleas to ban livestreaming in a different case.
Garg agreed that the week was stressful and disturbing. “I knew our team was being trolled, but then I also knew that it would die down,” she said. “I am hardly on social media, so it was easy to escape the noise. I even disabled my account for those few days,” Garg said.
