Bar and Bench, one of the leading legal news portals in India, recently published a report on CJI Chandrachud’s statement that a video of him adjusting his chair during the electoral bonds hearing was doctored and shared on the internet with the intent to troll him.
However, the Bar and Bench included tweets shared by X users without disclosing that the video embedded in it was originally produced by Law Today, an India Today arm that reports on legal matters.
Here is the archived link to the article published by Bar and Bench.
A Twitter user shared the snippet of the court proceedings originally reproduced by Law Today. Instead of mentioning that Law Today had produced the video, the report went on to throw the X user under the bus and quoted it after CJI said the video of him adjusting the chair was doctored. The report does not mention anywhere in the report that the video that the CJI was referring to was from Law Today.
Even though the video shared by the X user has the logo of Law Today featured on it, there was no mention of the origins of the video in the Bar and Bench’s report.
The video in question was tweeted by the official X handle of Law Today. Here is the archived link to the tweet.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud revealed on Saturday that a recent video of a live stream from his court was manipulated to mock him and portray him as arrogant.
According to the CJI, he was simply adjusting himself in the chair to alleviate some back pain and make himself more comfortable during a hearing. However, the video was altered to make it seem as though he had abruptly left the courtroom while a counsel was still presenting arguments.
After this doctored video circulated online, the CJI became the target of “vicious trolling and criticism.”
“In a recent case, I experienced some back pain while presiding, so I shifted my position slightly to ease it. Unfortunately, this moment was twisted in the video, creating a false impression. It was falsely portrayed that I arrogantly walked out during an ongoing argument,” recounted the CJI.